Re: Black Globes

Paul Baughman writes:
> (Paul doesn't mention it, but I, Adrian Hurt, wrote):
> >I'd refer to the MT white globe as "the ultimate defense".  Getting one is
> >a neat trick, though! ;-)
>
> Huh?  wazzat?

I'm sure I read about this in a MT manual, which isn't here right now for me
to check.  Instead of absorbing energy, it reflects it.  It isn't much use as
a cloaking device, of course.  I can't remember whether or not it allows you
to fire out through it.  I think it is available at some ridiculous tech level
(TL 20+, maybe).

Actually, firing out of a black globe shouldn't be a serious problem.  You
synchronise your fire with the flickering.  It might be necessary to have a
slightly longer than usual period that the globe is off, to allow some fire
(especially missiles) to get through.  At the simplest, have an interrupter
circuit fitted into the generator which turns the globe off, permits weapons
to fire, then turns the globe back on.  The drawback, of course, is that the
enemy might hit you while you're firing.  This could be accidental (roll
dice to see if the enemy got lucky when he fired) or intentional (the enemy
needs to make some sort of Sensors task roll).

> (Someone else not credited wrote):
> >Globe is turned on the ship can't fire, communicate or maneuver. The Ship
>
> Why can't it maneuver?  With reactionless thrusters which don't emit anything
> to be absorbed by the field, you should be able to maneuver all you want.

And there's your answer.  This rule, like so much else, is lifted from good
old High Guard.  And in those days, no-one had heard of reactionless thrusters.

Yet again, I say: ignore the garbage about reactionless thrusters.  They're
silly, they violate the law of conservation of energy, and they add nothing
to the game except inconsistencies like the above.

- - --
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  [email removed]
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   [email removed]