PP:E AAR

> On Sunday, January 18, 2004, at 04:21 PM, Laserlight wrote:

> From the GZG List:

There's a QRS on the Traveller Full Thrust yahoo group site.

> >The two ambiguities in the rules that we found today involved

> missiles that contact the ship? If the latter, is it if they pass

Any missile that moves through sand on the turn of impact will suffer
the -1 or -3 modifier from the sand (L2 sand is -3). If a ship is in or
touching a sand cloud the modifier would still apply.

BPLM shots also suffer this problem if the carrier (ie missile body
pre-detonation) or the laser shot passes through the sand cloud.

This is in line with HG where missiles suffer from sand.

> >b) Mining lasers consider short range to be 5mu. Point defense range

> is 6mu. If a BPL attacks from 6mu, can a mining laser defend against

My view would be that Mining Lasers cannot operate as point defenses against
missiles. No canon basis for that but my thoughts are they aren't designed as
military weapons.

> And a couple more:

In practicality, feel free to ignore the restriction on the sand cloud
placement. This rule is a hangover from when sand could be stacked. The other
reason it was implemented was to stop people forever knocking the ship over
when placing the counter which caused a few arguments in playtests on facings.

The technobabble handwave for the current rule would be that you can't
generate an adequate shaping field for the ship all around itself. Personally,
I'd just deploy the sand as you suggest in your example. Once the sand is in
play there is no issue with a ship being in it.

> d) if a ship in sand is attacked by missiles (or by a BPL which ends

Sand does not degrade point defense. It is stacked onto the combat result
table as usual.

Does that help?

Cheers,