From:	Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: vehicle combat question
Date:	Sat, 16 Sep 1995 21:53:44 -0400

On Sun, 17 Sep 1995, Fikouras Jani (U. of Bremen) wrote:

> > Yes, but a rigger can't optically target with a remote turret.
> > So your point is not germane to the discussion. Sensor-aided targetting
> > is always considered to be at short range, which is one hell of a bonus
> > to my mind. As good as a smartgunlink.
>
> Of course he can, if you read the paragraph where optical targeting is
> described in the RBB (sorry haven't got an RBB with me :) ) you will see
> if I remember corectly that optical targeting can be achieved through video
> sensors also described as a part of every remote turret. If riggers couldn't
> target optically then optical targeting would only be described as an
> option for gunners or regular turrets.

Hmmmm. I see where the confusion is arising. You are correct in
that the RBB does make a distinction between "sensors" and visual
sensors. But on the other hand, optical targetting needs to be described
for vehicles which have no sensors or times when sensor-aided targetting
is not appropriate (areas with much ECM interference). It still doesn't
sound like a remote turret should require an action to control, though.
My rationale comes directly from the reasoning behind spending an action
to control the vehicle and the lack of any mention of turrets requiring a
spent action to control.

Marc