Negative Target Lock values

[Super Jag]

While I have not implemented "house rules" it has recently been requested of me to do so by a number of players with regards to "negative TL" values.

 

There aren't that many TL systems that degrade to the point of actually having a negative TL value, but the fact that there are some does seem silly the more I hear and think about it. I understand the whole degradation pattern, but like I said... seems silly.

 

So, does anyone have some logical rationale for why negative numbers would not just default to a zero?

 

Has anyone already implemented a house rule to this effect?

 

Any thoughts on the subject would be interesting... thanks.

[Erion]

Negative = so damaged it's giving false readings.

 

Doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to me.

[Sergei]

I agree, basicly your HUD starts to act like a tv on the fritz

[Leech]

Yeah, the VR environment which the Wizzo is imersed in while in battle is giving ghosts and false readings which make it difficult for the Wizzo himself to get a grasp of the tactical situation, and those same sensor ghosts etc are being fed to the AI by the TL comp so when it takes the shot, it's shooting as a target which isn't exactly where the AI thinks it is.

 

That's my regurgitation of the official answer. The original official one is by Matt on Mil-Net about 3+ years ago.

[Castlebuilder]

With all the high tech gadgetry and weapons that are supposed to be in a CAV, I can't picture them firing with the Ol' M1 Eyeball. Even though the system sucks, the poor Wizzo would be stuck doing the best he can with it. I say keep the negatives!

 

Castlebuilder

[Chrome]

Especially since by ignoring the negatives, you're unbalancing that model from a points cost.

[Jeneki]

Negative target lock is only half as fun to explain as negative armor.

[Crusoe the Painter]

Well Cavs do have optical chameleon camoflague ( from the fluff in the first CAV sourcebook).

 

So if yer sensors are jammed, and you are trying to use the Mk I eyeball, you're trying to pick out a mech with a camo pattern that changes to match the terrain. Thus it's HARDER than simply looking out the window for say, a non-camo mech, especially at range.

[Super Jag]

Well Cavs do have optical chameleon camoflague ( from the fluff in the first CAV sourcebook).

 

So if yer sensors are jammed, and you are trying to use the Mk I eyeball, you're trying to pick out a mech with a camo pattern that changes to match the terrain. Thus it's HARDER than simply looking out the window for say, a non-camo mech, especially at range.

Whoa!!! Now THAT is too COOL!!!!!!!

[Leech]

Really?!?! What page is that mentioned on? I was always under the impression that in the futuristic battlefield, non-optical sensors were so reliable no-one bothered with that kinda stuff.

 

I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it given discussions with Matt and Ed and others, plus the forum goers :o)

[Jeremy]

Yeah I agree with Frank on this one. I dont remember seeing anything about that in anything I have read.

 

Again I could be wrong though, but I am pretty sure.

[Chrome]

Actually the guns can't be fired w/out using the targeting system, or at least that's how I remember Matt's ruling being worded. Even when its the pilot taking control, its still the targetting system that's moving the arms and stuff, even tho he isn't using the complicated stuff that the Wizzo does.

 

Plus the negative value could be a result of things other than just the computers working incorrectly. Maybe that CAV's shoulder bellar joints aren't quite up to snuff and they tend to lock up when the unit's taken a lot of damage.