Classic Traveller Sensor Rules

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
I'm again thinking of the situation where a ship is at the 100D limit of the planet. At 1g that is about a 4-6 hour trip to orbit. Just about everything should be detectable in that time, assuming the Navigator is rolling every 10 minutes (24-36 rolls). Is that what you want?

Everything within range is detectible.

Most ships will only have Class I sensors. That's a range of 15 hexes or so (150,000km).

The trip from a Size 8 world, out to 100 diams, is 10 times the detection range of Class I sensors. It's entirely possible for enemies to move about just outside detection range as that vessel moves from orbit to 100 diams (see my example in the other post).

Of course, this doesn't count penalty modifiers, either...if a target is "coasting", or EM Masked, or even runnng silent.

And, should a bogey be detected, most aren't going to be any big deal--nothing out of the ordinary. Why would the players lock onto each and every ship they come across? That wouldn't make sense (and may piss the wrong people off, too).

Since usual practice is for ships to fly around with their transponders broadcasting, most ships should be easily detectible. If the players pick up a ship that doesn't have its transponder broadcasting, then that should send up a red flag.

So, your question above was, "Is this what I want?"

I'd say yeah...yeah it is. We're simulating how real sensors would work in a simple, CT-type style.

I think, myself, that these rules are meshing beautifully with CT starship combat.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
I'm again thinking of the situation where a ship is at the 100D limit of the planet. At 1g that is about a 4-6 hour trip to orbit. Just about everything should be detectable in that time, assuming the Navigator is rolling every 10 minutes (24-36 rolls). Is that what you want?

Everything within range is detectible.

Most ships will only have Class I sensors. That's a range of 15 hexes or so (150,000km).

The trip from a Size 8 world, out to 100 diams, is 10 times the detection range of Class I sensors. It's entirely possible for enemies to move about just outside detection range as that vessel moves from orbit to 100 diams (see my example in the other post).

Of course, this doesn't count penalty modifiers, either...if a target is "coasting", or EM Masked, or even runnng silent.

And, should a bogey be detected, most aren't going to be any big deal--nothing out of the ordinary. Why would the players lock onto each and every ship they come across? That wouldn't make sense (and may piss the wrong people off, too).

Since usual practice is for ships to fly around with their transponders broadcasting, most ships should be easily detectible. If the players pick up a ship that doesn't have its transponder broadcasting, then that should send up a red flag.

So, your question above was, "Is this what I want?"

I'd say yeah...yeah it is. We're simulating how real sensors would work in a simple, CT-type style.

I think, myself, that these rules are meshing beautifully with CT starship combat.

 

[Plankowner]

I agree with your use of the sensors, I like it too. I was just trying to make sure you had thought of everything and that things were the way you want.

I talked my 15 year old son into playing a quick little game with me last night. Took a while to get him to understand the rules, but he was willing to give it a try. He liked it. I used the "you just came out of jump and this is what you see" scenario.

Lessons learned:

1. DON'T let the player make the Detection roll. I let him do this and he rolled a 12 on one of the rolls, after that he didn't bother rolling because he had found everything and didn't bother to look any more. So as the GM, I put a small meteor on a collision course with his ship and started it just out of detection range (he finally saw it, but not until it was almost too late). Players should be presented with what they detect. Let them roll for Lock-On, because if they roll high and still don't get a lock, they deserve to know that info.

2. Computer hits require Re-Roll for Lock-On or Detection.

I made him re-roll all lock-ons (no penalties for numbers, just to see if he kept the lock). If he failed, they dropped back to "Detected". For those items that were only Detected, he re-rolled and for those that he failed to detect, they dropped off his screen. He got them back the next turn, but it made for a TENSE moment.

3. If there is any chance to get a Passive Lock, try it. Even with the -6DM, if you can possibly roll it, do it. It is not likely that you will succeed, but you have nothing to loose and the advantages of having a lock on someone without them knowing you have it are huge. I lost a ship that way...

4. As soon as you think the other ship has detected you and makes a move toward you, go active and Lock On. Don't wait until he makes a threatening move. ANY change of course should be treated suspiciously. Lost another ship that way too.

5. My 15-year-old is VERY good at this stuff. He kicked my b*tt several times. I also realized that I am VERY rusty at playing this stuff and have forgotten all my tactics.

6. These sensor rules KICK ASS!

4.

 

[Plankowner]

I agree with your use of the sensors, I like it too. I was just trying to make sure you had thought of everything and that things were the way you want.

I talked my 15 year old son into playing a quick little game with me last night. Took a while to get him to understand the rules, but he was willing to give it a try. He liked it. I used the "you just came out of jump and this is what you see" scenario.

Lessons learned:

1. DON'T let the player make the Detection roll. I let him do this and he rolled a 12 on one of the rolls, after that he didn't bother rolling because he had found everything and didn't bother to look any more. So as the GM, I put a small meteor on a collision course with his ship and started it just out of detection range (he finally saw it, but not until it was almost too late). Players should be presented with what they detect. Let them roll for Lock-On, because if they roll high and still don't get a lock, they deserve to know that info.

2. Computer hits require Re-Roll for Lock-On or Detection.

I made him re-roll all lock-ons (no penalties for numbers, just to see if he kept the lock). If he failed, they dropped back to "Detected". For those items that were only Detected, he re-rolled and for those that he failed to detect, they dropped off his screen. He got them back the next turn, but it made for a TENSE moment.

3. If there is any chance to get a Passive Lock, try it. Even with the -6DM, if you can possibly roll it, do it. It is not likely that you will succeed, but you have nothing to loose and the advantages of having a lock on someone without them knowing you have it are huge. I lost a ship that way...

4. As soon as you think the other ship has detected you and makes a move toward you, go active and Lock On. Don't wait until he makes a threatening move. ANY change of course should be treated suspiciously. Lost another ship that way too.

5. My 15-year-old is VERY good at this stuff. He kicked my b*tt several times. I also realized that I am VERY rusty at playing this stuff and have forgotten all my tactics.

6. These sensor rules KICK ASS!

4.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
1. DON'T let the player make the Detection roll. I let him do this and he rolled a 12 on one of the rolls, after that he didn't bother rolling because he had found everything and didn't bother to look any more.

Absolutely. I agree 100%.

I put a line like this in the rules stating that state it would probably be best if the GM rolled for the scans.

But, I've noticed the players like to make thier own rolls when they can--it increases their involvement. So, also in the rules, I suggested that the GM have the players make a bunch of rolls before hand, and then record these rolls on a piece of paper--allowing the GM to look one up when he needs a roll.

(I use this for all sorts of things--not just sensor rolls. For instance, if a PC walks into a room, and the GM wants to check to see if he notices something, I'll go to my "Secret Checks" list and see what the next unused roll is without giving the player a heads up that something might be up. Had I made him roll, and he rolls lousy, he'll still know something's up and be cautious. By using the secret checks list, players are none-the-wiser. This is a great way to play passive sensor rolls too.)

2. Computer hits require Re-Roll for Lock-On or Detection.

I'm doing something similar. In Book 2 it states a roll (beginning at 1+, with a -DM per computer hit) is made each time the computer is used (usually once per phase). If the roll fails, the computer is out that phase (and may be back up next phase).

So, during the movement phase, when the computer is damaged, I simply have the player roll this computer check. If the computer is down, all locks and detections are lost and must be re-acquired. Otherwise, with a successful computer roll, the computer retains whatever lock or detection it had.

I made him re-roll all lock-ons (no penalties for numbers, just to see if he kept the lock). If he failed, they dropped back to "Detected".

As the sensor rules were being developed, I did play around with this idea. Each round, a sensor check was made to determine if the lock was maintained (and a +2DM bonus was applied to locks if a lock had been acquired on the target the round before.)

I dropped this because the prevailing wisdom on the TML (more than one person) stated that, even with sensor technology in the RW today, it's hard to loose detection or a lock once it is acquired. The hard part is acquiring detection, but once somebody goes active, or a lock is acquired, then typically (unless the target dives behind a moon or into a GG atmosphere or something like that) locks will be maintained--especially with 57th century tech.

So, I dropped the idea.

Personally, I like how the sensor rules take a back seat to normal Book 2 play after all targets are detected (the players never know when "all targets are detected" of course).

And, if all combatants are "active" at the start of the scenario (maybe they all had their transponders blaring), then it's likely that the sensor rules won't be used that much in a scenario like that.

3. If there is any chance to get a Passive Lock, try it. Even with the -6DM, if you can possibly roll it, do it. It is not likely that you will succeed, but you have nothing to loose and the advantages of having a lock on someone without them knowing you have it are huge.

Well, their is one disadvantage to trying a passive lock.

You only get a number of lock attempts each round equal to the number of bogies you've detected, and you can only attempt a lock once per bogey per round.

So, if you see a close bogey--the one you want to fire at during the round--you've got to get a lock on it.

If you roll for a passive lock, at -6DM, and fail the roll, you will not have another opportunity to lock onto that bogey again that round. It will be next round before you can attempt a lock again, and you won't be able to fire at that target during the current round.

So, if you want to lock onto a target during the round, the best bet is to use the Active sensors (what they're typically best at), without the -6DM (but you can only make a number of those lock attempt equal to your ship's computer model number).

4. As soon as you think the other ship has detected you and makes a move toward you, go active and Lock On. Don't wait until he makes a threatening move. ANY change of course should be treated suspiciously. Lost another ship that way too.

Absolutely. In the test scenario I played, I set up two ships for my player to encounter. He went after the civilian, while my pirate vessel swung around, without being detected, and took first shot.

The pirate, having damaged the player's ship first, lead the scenario. The whole combat, the player was trying to catch up.

I imagine that this will be even worse given more weapons on an enemy ship.

Whoever throws the first punch in Book 2 combat can be a combat-deciding move.

6. These sensor rules KICK ASS!

Extremely cool! Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
1. DON'T let the player make the Detection roll. I let him do this and he rolled a 12 on one of the rolls, after that he didn't bother rolling because he had found everything and didn't bother to look any more.

Absolutely. I agree 100%.

I put a line like this in the rules stating that state it would probably be best if the GM rolled for the scans.

But, I've noticed the players like to make thier own rolls when they can--it increases their involvement. So, also in the rules, I suggested that the GM have the players make a bunch of rolls before hand, and then record these rolls on a piece of paper--allowing the GM to look one up when he needs a roll.

(I use this for all sorts of things--not just sensor rolls. For instance, if a PC walks into a room, and the GM wants to check to see if he notices something, I'll go to my "Secret Checks" list and see what the next unused roll is without giving the player a heads up that something might be up. Had I made him roll, and he rolls lousy, he'll still know something's up and be cautious. By using the secret checks list, players are none-the-wiser. This is a great way to play passive sensor rolls too.)

2. Computer hits require Re-Roll for Lock-On or Detection.

I'm doing something similar. In Book 2 it states a roll (beginning at 1+, with a -DM per computer hit) is made each time the computer is used (usually once per phase). If the roll fails, the computer is out that phase (and may be back up next phase).

So, during the movement phase, when the computer is damaged, I simply have the player roll this computer check. If the computer is down, all locks and detections are lost and must be re-acquired. Otherwise, with a successful computer roll, the computer retains whatever lock or detection it had.

I made him re-roll all lock-ons (no penalties for numbers, just to see if he kept the lock). If he failed, they dropped back to "Detected".

As the sensor rules were being developed, I did play around with this idea. Each round, a sensor check was made to determine if the lock was maintained (and a +2DM bonus was applied to locks if a lock had been acquired on the target the round before.)

I dropped this because the prevailing wisdom on the TML (more than one person) stated that, even with sensor technology in the RW today, it's hard to loose detection or a lock once it is acquired. The hard part is acquiring detection, but once somebody goes active, or a lock is acquired, then typically (unless the target dives behind a moon or into a GG atmosphere or something like that) locks will be maintained--especially with 57th century tech.

So, I dropped the idea.

Personally, I like how the sensor rules take a back seat to normal Book 2 play after all targets are detected (the players never know when "all targets are detected" of course).

And, if all combatants are "active" at the start of the scenario (maybe they all had their transponders blaring), then it's likely that the sensor rules won't be used that much in a scenario like that.

3. If there is any chance to get a Passive Lock, try it. Even with the -6DM, if you can possibly roll it, do it. It is not likely that you will succeed, but you have nothing to loose and the advantages of having a lock on someone without them knowing you have it are huge.

Well, their is one disadvantage to trying a passive lock.

You only get a number of lock attempts each round equal to the number of bogies you've detected, and you can only attempt a lock once per bogey per round.

So, if you see a close bogey--the one you want to fire at during the round--you've got to get a lock on it.

If you roll for a passive lock, at -6DM, and fail the roll, you will not have another opportunity to lock onto that bogey again that round. It will be next round before you can attempt a lock again, and you won't be able to fire at that target during the current round.

So, if you want to lock onto a target during the round, the best bet is to use the Active sensors (what they're typically best at), without the -6DM (but you can only make a number of those lock attempt equal to your ship's computer model number).

4. As soon as you think the other ship has detected you and makes a move toward you, go active and Lock On. Don't wait until he makes a threatening move. ANY change of course should be treated suspiciously. Lost another ship that way too.

Absolutely. In the test scenario I played, I set up two ships for my player to encounter. He went after the civilian, while my pirate vessel swung around, without being detected, and took first shot.

The pirate, having damaged the player's ship first, lead the scenario. The whole combat, the player was trying to catch up.

I imagine that this will be even worse given more weapons on an enemy ship.

Whoever throws the first punch in Book 2 combat can be a combat-deciding move.

6. These sensor rules KICK ASS!

Extremely cool! Thanks for the feedback!

 

[Plankowner]

OK, final comments based on your feedback.

1. Player or GM Roll Detection.
I saw your comments, I was just re-inforcing it. I like your pre-rolled idea.

2. Computer Hits reroll Lock/Detect.
I had him do it without worrying about how many in a given round. I figured there was a small chance that a given object would "drop" one category. BUT, for simplicity, I think your rule works better and I will do that.

3. Passive Lock
I didn't explain myself very well. I meant, before you go ACTIVE, make your passive lock rolls if you can. In the early part of the scenario, none of the ships were active, they were just moving around trying to detect each other. He detected me first then used passive lock attempts to lock on without having to go active. With the -6DM, it only worked once, but I thought it was a good strategy.

Again, I really like these rules and if I can get my kids to go for Traveller, I will definitely incorporate them. Good Job!

 

[Plankowner]

OK, final comments based on your feedback.

1. Player or GM Roll Detection.
I saw your comments, I was just re-inforcing it. I like your pre-rolled idea.

2. Computer Hits reroll Lock/Detect.
I had him do it without worrying about how many in a given round. I figured there was a small chance that a given object would "drop" one category. BUT, for simplicity, I think your rule works better and I will do that.

3. Passive Lock
I didn't explain myself very well. I meant, before you go ACTIVE, make your passive lock rolls if you can. In the early part of the scenario, none of the ships were active, they were just moving around trying to detect each other. He detected me first then used passive lock attempts to lock on without having to go active. With the -6DM, it only worked once, but I thought it was a good strategy.

Again, I really like these rules and if I can get my kids to go for Traveller, I will definitely incorporate them. Good Job!

 

[Mickazoid]

I'd be happy to publish an LBB pdf from WJP's rules, free and with full formatting.

WJP - feel free to send me the manuscript when you're ready.

 

[Mickazoid]

I'd be happy to publish an LBB pdf from WJP's rules, free and with full formatting.

WJP - feel free to send me the manuscript when you're ready.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
2. Computer Hits reroll Lock/Detect.
I had him do it without worrying about how many in a given round. I figured there was a small chance that a given object would "drop" one category. BUT, for simplicity, I think your rule works better and I will do that.

The computer rule for lock tasks make a lot of sense to me...There's only so much time in a 1000 second combat round. Input from various sensors has to be coordinated by the computer, and the sensor operator has to read it.

The one-lock-per bogey rule speaks to a number of things:

- Better computers can process more data and work faster.

- If there were no limit at all before the -6DM kicks in, or even with the -6DM, then players would roll all day until they roll a 12 (or whatever) and made detection.

3. Passive Lock
I didn't explain myself very well. I meant, before you go ACTIVE, make your passive lock rolls if you can. In the early part of the scenario, none of the ships were active, they were just moving around trying to detect each other. He detected me first then used passive lock attempts to lock on without having to go active. With the -6DM, it only worked once, but I thought it was a good strategy.

I agree. If you've got a bogey detected, then use the passive sensors to try to lock onto him, even with the -6DM....

...as long as you've got the time to do this. If you're reasonably sure he's not detected you, or he's not going to go active before you do, then you can spend hours (around four game rounds equal one game hour) attempting a passive lock.

But, if you don't have the luxury of all that time, then going active is your choice. Depending on how many turrets and weapons you have on your ship, the one who fires first could get a decided advantage during the combat.

Again, I really like these rules and if I can get my kids to go for Traveller, I will definitely incorporate them. Good Job!

Thanks for the words, and thanks for the playtest!

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
2. Computer Hits reroll Lock/Detect.
I had him do it without worrying about how many in a given round. I figured there was a small chance that a given object would "drop" one category. BUT, for simplicity, I think your rule works better and I will do that.

The computer rule for lock tasks make a lot of sense to me...There's only so much time in a 1000 second combat round. Input from various sensors has to be coordinated by the computer, and the sensor operator has to read it.

The one-lock-per bogey rule speaks to a number of things:

- Better computers can process more data and work faster.

- If there were no limit at all before the -6DM kicks in, or even with the -6DM, then players would roll all day until they roll a 12 (or whatever) and made detection.

3. Passive Lock
I didn't explain myself very well. I meant, before you go ACTIVE, make your passive lock rolls if you can. In the early part of the scenario, none of the ships were active, they were just moving around trying to detect each other. He detected me first then used passive lock attempts to lock on without having to go active. With the -6DM, it only worked once, but I thought it was a good strategy.

I agree. If you've got a bogey detected, then use the passive sensors to try to lock onto him, even with the -6DM....

...as long as you've got the time to do this. If you're reasonably sure he's not detected you, or he's not going to go active before you do, then you can spend hours (around four game rounds equal one game hour) attempting a passive lock.

But, if you don't have the luxury of all that time, then going active is your choice. Depending on how many turrets and weapons you have on your ship, the one who fires first could get a decided advantage during the combat.

Again, I really like these rules and if I can get my kids to go for Traveller, I will definitely incorporate them. Good Job!

Thanks for the words, and thanks for the playtest!

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by mickazoid:
I'd be happy to publish an LBB pdf from WJP's rules, free and with full formatting.

WJP - feel free to send me the manuscript when you're ready.

You're on. Thanks for the offer. I'll take you up on it.

All that is needed to complete the rules is (1) how much the four classes of sensors cost; and (2) how much tonnage they take up (so that people building ships using Book 2 or High Guard rules can incorporate them into their designs).

When that's completed, let's LLB pdf these suckers.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by mickazoid:
I'd be happy to publish an LBB pdf from WJP's rules, free and with full formatting.

WJP - feel free to send me the manuscript when you're ready.

You're on. Thanks for the offer. I'll take you up on it.

All that is needed to complete the rules is (1) how much the four classes of sensors cost; and (2) how much tonnage they take up (so that people building ships using Book 2 or High Guard rules can incorporate them into their designs).

When that's completed, let's LLB pdf these suckers.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
2. Computer Hits reroll Lock/Detect.
I had him do it without worrying about how many in a given round. I figured there was a small chance that a given object would "drop" one category. BUT, for simplicity, I think your rule works better and I will do that.

Here's an idea (that I think I'm going to use in my game):

Targets that are "locked" will stay locked on the board, just as written in the rules. But, the GM rolls Book 2 damage behind the screen whenever the player's hit their enemy.

This way, they'll not know what damage they did to the enemy unless they use their sensors.

In effect, gameplay with these sensor rules remains unchanged--you're not rolling to maintain the lock each combat round.

But, if the sensor operator wants additional specific information about a target vessel (like the amount of damage it just received), then the sensor operator is going to have to read his sensors and see what he can determine.

The roll is the same as a Sensor Lock except the operator is provided a beneficial +2DM (and he can attempt one of these readings in place of a sensor lock against a bogey each round).

With this rule, knowing the damage you just did to your enemy is not "automatic" just because you've got a sensor lock on him. Your sensor operator is an important compenent of your ship-board armory, feeding data to the ship's gunners, and decerning damage done to enemy vessels.

Thoughts on this?

I like it. I think I'm going to amend the Sensor Rules with it, and definitely use it in my game.

Plus, it makes the Navigator remain important during a starship combat scenario after all enemies are detected and locked.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
2. Computer Hits reroll Lock/Detect.
I had him do it without worrying about how many in a given round. I figured there was a small chance that a given object would "drop" one category. BUT, for simplicity, I think your rule works better and I will do that.

Here's an idea (that I think I'm going to use in my game):

Targets that are "locked" will stay locked on the board, just as written in the rules. But, the GM rolls Book 2 damage behind the screen whenever the player's hit their enemy.

This way, they'll not know what damage they did to the enemy unless they use their sensors.

In effect, gameplay with these sensor rules remains unchanged--you're not rolling to maintain the lock each combat round.

But, if the sensor operator wants additional specific information about a target vessel (like the amount of damage it just received), then the sensor operator is going to have to read his sensors and see what he can determine.

The roll is the same as a Sensor Lock except the operator is provided a beneficial +2DM (and he can attempt one of these readings in place of a sensor lock against a bogey each round).

With this rule, knowing the damage you just did to your enemy is not "automatic" just because you've got a sensor lock on him. Your sensor operator is an important compenent of your ship-board armory, feeding data to the ship's gunners, and decerning damage done to enemy vessels.

Thoughts on this?

I like it. I think I'm going to amend the Sensor Rules with it, and definitely use it in my game.

Plus, it makes the Navigator remain important during a starship combat scenario after all enemies are detected and locked.

 

[Plankowner]

I like it too. It keeps the Navigator busy with something other than plotting jump courses. I always thought the Navigator got paid an awful lot of money each month to plot 2 courses; sure they were important and all, but damn! I always figured the Pilot did the in-system plots (they should be pretty basic by TL9+).

I still don't think I have explained myself very well on the Computer Hit/Relock thing. I agree that you should only get one lock attempt per turn per object, and only get Computer Number of lock attempts per turn. That all makes sense.

My comment was AFTER sensor locks have been obtained and the THEN your ship takes a computer hit. There should be a chance that you loose sensor lock on one of your bogeys. I just had him re-roll all the sensor locks again so see if that happened. He wasn't really rolling to re-obtain sensor lock, just rolling to see if he had lost any. But you have convinced me that this step was probably unnecessary and locks should stay locked until out of range.

 

[Plankowner]

I like it too. It keeps the Navigator busy with something other than plotting jump courses. I always thought the Navigator got paid an awful lot of money each month to plot 2 courses; sure they were important and all, but damn! I always figured the Pilot did the in-system plots (they should be pretty basic by TL9+).

I still don't think I have explained myself very well on the Computer Hit/Relock thing. I agree that you should only get one lock attempt per turn per object, and only get Computer Number of lock attempts per turn. That all makes sense.

My comment was AFTER sensor locks have been obtained and the THEN your ship takes a computer hit. There should be a chance that you loose sensor lock on one of your bogeys. I just had him re-roll all the sensor locks again so see if that happened. He wasn't really rolling to re-obtain sensor lock, just rolling to see if he had lost any. But you have convinced me that this step was probably unnecessary and locks should stay locked until out of range.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
I like it too. It keeps the Navigator busy with something other than plotting jump courses.

Done.

That little bit will make it into the final rules.

I still don't think I have explained myself very well on the Computer Hit/Relock thing. I agree that you should only get one lock attempt per turn per object, and only get Computer Number of lock attempts per turn. That all makes sense.

My comment was AFTER sensor locks have been obtained and the THEN your ship takes a computer hit. There should be a chance that you loose sensor lock on one of your bogeys. I just had him re-roll all the sensor locks again so see if that happened. He wasn't really rolling to re-obtain sensor lock, just rolling to see if he had lost any. But you have convinced me that this step was probably unnecessary and locks should stay locked until out of range.

That's interesting...because you've convinced me that a computer hit will disrupt a sensor lock.

In my game, I'm following the Book 2 rules on this. It says that the computer check (1+ on 2D for the computer to keep working....use a -1DM for every hit the computer takes) should be made each phase.

If one of my players makes that check during the movement phase, and their computer goes kaput, then they'll have to reacquire the lock.

I like that. I think it's good input.

I'm sorry I convinced you the other way (wasn't trying to on that point!).

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Plankowner:
I like it too. It keeps the Navigator busy with something other than plotting jump courses.

Done.

That little bit will make it into the final rules.

I still don't think I have explained myself very well on the Computer Hit/Relock thing. I agree that you should only get one lock attempt per turn per object, and only get Computer Number of lock attempts per turn. That all makes sense.

My comment was AFTER sensor locks have been obtained and the THEN your ship takes a computer hit. There should be a chance that you loose sensor lock on one of your bogeys. I just had him re-roll all the sensor locks again so see if that happened. He wasn't really rolling to re-obtain sensor lock, just rolling to see if he had lost any. But you have convinced me that this step was probably unnecessary and locks should stay locked until out of range.

That's interesting...because you've convinced me that a computer hit will disrupt a sensor lock.

In my game, I'm following the Book 2 rules on this. It says that the computer check (1+ on 2D for the computer to keep working....use a -1DM for every hit the computer takes) should be made each phase.

If one of my players makes that check during the movement phase, and their computer goes kaput, then they'll have to reacquire the lock.

I like that. I think it's good input.

I'm sorry I convinced you the other way (wasn't trying to on that point!).