From:	Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject:	Re: vehicle combat question
Date:	Mon, 18 Sep 1995 14:28:56 +0200

> > 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.

Well, we agree here. Spending a whole action to just move a turret and
then spending another action to shoot is a bit extreme. OTOH I feel that
its the only realistic expalanation I can think of for the "control limit"
thingy.
One could say that because of the extra action the rigger spent, he gets
the luxury to shoot each weapon at a different target without the +2
TN modifier. Hmmmmm

--
GCS d s+: p1 a-->? C++++ UA++$S++L+++>++++ L+++ E--- W+ N+ w(--) M-- !V(--)
PS+ PE Y+ PGP-- @*++ 5++ X++ R+++ tv++ b++ G+++ e++ h+(*) r

Moderator of alt.c00ld00z (coolness in general)