'Me-too' transporter attempts
Moderators: mjwest, Albiegamer
'Me-too' transporter attempts
Let's say that we're playing a scenario where the players have to recover objects by transporter. Is there a rule in 'the book' that describes what happens if two players declare simultaneous transporter attempts on the same object?
Nope, there is no rule for that.
However, since that is purely a scenario situation, the scenario rule should cover that contingency. Especially since the situation you describe is so vague.
Here are some suggestions. (Not ruling, just suggestions.)
If this set of objects is effectively just a single object (i.e. they are transported as a single unit), then I would say that simultaneous transporter activity (even through me-too) will interfere with each other. Thus both transporter operations are unsuccessful. Try again later.
If the set of objects are transported individually, then each transporter attempt will get different objects. Unless there is only a single item left, in which case we resolve to the above situation.
If the objects must be retrieved with the assistance of marine units, then you have choices.
If the objects are retrieved using separate transporter actions (one action to place the marine unit(s), then a separate one to retrieve the marines and objects), then the solution is easy: they fight it out; victor gets to transport the objects back with the living marines.
If the objects are retrieved using the raid mechanism, then things get a little interesting. You could just treat it like the first situation where the simultaneous operations cancel each other out (basically, the marines both arrive, prevent each other from getting the objects, and return). Or, you could say that the different marine units prevent each other from returning. Then they have to fight it out and get retrieved later. (Basically, it turns into the first marine case.)
Anyway, all of this is just food for thought. Do it the way you think best, and just make sure everyone is on the same page with it. It is really just a part of the overall scenario rule dealing with the retrieval of the objects.
However, since that is purely a scenario situation, the scenario rule should cover that contingency. Especially since the situation you describe is so vague.
Here are some suggestions. (Not ruling, just suggestions.)
If this set of objects is effectively just a single object (i.e. they are transported as a single unit), then I would say that simultaneous transporter activity (even through me-too) will interfere with each other. Thus both transporter operations are unsuccessful. Try again later.
If the set of objects are transported individually, then each transporter attempt will get different objects. Unless there is only a single item left, in which case we resolve to the above situation.
If the objects must be retrieved with the assistance of marine units, then you have choices.
If the objects are retrieved using separate transporter actions (one action to place the marine unit(s), then a separate one to retrieve the marines and objects), then the solution is easy: they fight it out; victor gets to transport the objects back with the living marines.
If the objects are retrieved using the raid mechanism, then things get a little interesting. You could just treat it like the first situation where the simultaneous operations cancel each other out (basically, the marines both arrive, prevent each other from getting the objects, and return). Or, you could say that the different marine units prevent each other from returning. Then they have to fight it out and get retrieved later. (Basically, it turns into the first marine case.)
Anyway, all of this is just food for thought. Do it the way you think best, and just make sure everyone is on the same page with it. It is really just a part of the overall scenario rule dealing with the retrieval of the objects.
Federation Commander Answer Guy
Whose closer? The transporter lock will be better and the time to cycle the transporter will be less, therefore quicker. If you have the lock and cycle quicker, there is no object to which the enemy may lock for it is already being transported. (Reference Nemesis: Transporter verses Tractor for operational concept)
HoD K'el
IMV Black Dagger
-----------------
Life is not victory;
Death is not defeat!
IMV Black Dagger
-----------------
Life is not victory;
Death is not defeat!
-
Dan Ibekwe
- Commander
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:06 pm
- Location: Manchester UK
It's a good idea, Dan. I did consider that, but I figured a transporter uses a set amount of power and probably isn't set up to boost it in competition with other units.
In the tech logs, the object is stabilised/locked immediately before dematerialisation in an 'annular confinement beam' but obviously only one of these can be used on an object at the same time. First ship to establish the ACB would 'win', but a ship that did not 'win' would not expend any power since not even the ACB would be established.
At worst, they would only lose a bit of power (negligible) via the targeting scanners, but still the transporter would have 'nearly' been committed because someone would have pressed the button. However since the ACB was never established, I did not feel that I could say that the transporter had been 'used', but it would need to be re-targeted - hence the wait until next impulse (see below). It's a liberty, granted, but since there are no rules on this, I'm not really doing anything outside the box.
Bearing all this in mind, I have combined two of the other ideas: nearest wins, if equidistant, nobody wins, in either case an unsuccessful player loses no power and can use the transporter later in the turn (but not this impulse).
I hope this is a small part of something that's going to lead to a published scenario. We'll see....
In the tech logs, the object is stabilised/locked immediately before dematerialisation in an 'annular confinement beam' but obviously only one of these can be used on an object at the same time. First ship to establish the ACB would 'win', but a ship that did not 'win' would not expend any power since not even the ACB would be established.
At worst, they would only lose a bit of power (negligible) via the targeting scanners, but still the transporter would have 'nearly' been committed because someone would have pressed the button. However since the ACB was never established, I did not feel that I could say that the transporter had been 'used', but it would need to be re-targeted - hence the wait until next impulse (see below). It's a liberty, granted, but since there are no rules on this, I'm not really doing anything outside the box.
Bearing all this in mind, I have combined two of the other ideas: nearest wins, if equidistant, nobody wins, in either case an unsuccessful player loses no power and can use the transporter later in the turn (but not this impulse).
I hope this is a small part of something that's going to lead to a published scenario. We'll see....