Adding armour to planetoids / buffered planetoids

[Amber Chancer]

Sure, it can be done.

But at what cost??

The cost formula for hull armour uses the siglum a to indicate "desired armour factor". But this wording is ambiguous.

Is the desired armour factor the amount of armour which it is desired to add, or the amount which it is desired to end up with?

My instinct is to go with the latter interpretation, since the amount of armour that you add is not an armour factor - the armour factor being added armour +3 in the case of a planetoid and added armour +6 in the case of a buffered planetoid. However, I don't want to end up paying more for my ships than I have to, so if other people have different views I'd love to hear them ... and their reasoning.

(I've a horrible feeling this one will run and run ... but ... )

 

[far-trader]

I've always interpreted it as planetoid armour is a bonus armour factor of +3 or +6 (for buffered) to any armour installed on the planetoid hull. That keeps price and TL limits in order. Seems the intent to me.

 

[Orr]

But this wording is ambiguous.

The wording isn't ambiguous, it's just that munchkins choose to believe it is ambiguous. The same "argument" you're making about planetoid armor has been made regarding armor levels of zero.

Your "question" is moot however because the wording was made more munchkin-proof in DonM's official CT errata document which you'll find stickied at the top of the CT forum.

 

[atpollard]

... to any armour installed on the planetoid hull.

[NIT PICK ALERT!!!]
I would install armor along the tunnels INSIDE the planetoid hull, reducing the volume to be armored and, therefore, the cost of the added armor.
[END NITPICK ALERT]

The wording isn't ambiguous, it's just that munchkins choose to believe it is ambiguous.

"munchkins"?
First, you seem to be making poor choices when selecting nouns ... 'munchkin' is not a term that makes friends, so please try to play nice with others.
Second, you and I appear to have very different definitions of 'munchkin'. I was under the impression that 'munchkins' deliberately interpreted rules to always give themselves an unfair advantage. In this case, charging for armor zero would be an unfair penalty rather than advantage. Wouldn't that be closer to a 'rules lawyer'.


NEW POINT (an attempt to make a positive contribution):
I always thought that High Guard missed an opportunity with armor costs and the cost of Armor 0 should have been the cost of an unarmored hull and replaced the standard hull cost per dTon ... so the cost per dton of unarmored ships would drop as TL rises. That is clearly not the official rule, but I always thought that it should have been.

Just for conversation, here is DonM's official errata:

Page 29, Armor (clarification): The text reads, ―The armor table indicates formulae for the computation of armor tonnage and cost, based on the factor selected. If no armor is selected, no tonnage is required. The Hull Armor table was not intended to apply when the Armor USP is zero.

 

[Orr]

"munchkins"? First, you seem to be making poor choices when selecting nouns ...

Not a poor word choice. More like calling spades spades.

Second, you and I appear to have very different definitions of 'munchkin'. I was under the impression that 'munchkins' deliberately interpreted rules to always give themselves an unfair advantage. In this case, charging for armor zero would be an unfair penalty rather than advantage.

The advantage occurs when the munchkin's argument is accepted and their "charge for previously free armor" designs are now "correct" while their opponent's are now broken. Something which usually happens 15 minutes or so before the HG2/TCS match...

Wouldn't that be closer to a 'rules lawyer'.

Rules lawyers use overlooked or elided rules to their advantage. They apply the preexisting rules to the game. Munchkins, in contrast, change the rules to create their advantage. Charging for previously free armor is a change in the rules and the canonical designs created from those rules.

Of course, the next argument in support of charging for previous free armor will be that many canonical designs are already broken in some manner. That's true, there is a disconnect between LBB:2 and HG2 which created problems and there are those HG1 designs floating around too.

However, the fact that some designs are broken doesn't support the contention that all designs should be treated as if they are broken and, if you begin charging for previously free armor, all canonical designs will be broken.

 

[McPerth]

Sure, it can be done.

But at what cost??

The cost formula for hull armour uses the siglum a to indicate "desired armour factor". But this wording is ambiguous.

Is the desired armour factor the amount of armour which it is desired to add, or the amount which it is desired to end up with?

My instinct is to go with the latter interpretation, since the amount of armour that you add is not an armour factor - the armour factor being added armour +3 in the case of a planetoid and added armour +6 in the case of a buffered planetoid. However, I don't want to end up paying more for my ships than I have to, so if other people have different views I'd love to hear them ... and their reasoning.

(I've a horrible feeling this one will run and run ... but ... )

If you find it confusing in CT:HG then I advise you not to try to design them in MT. As much as MT is my favorite rules set, its wording is too often quite confusing.

MT:RM, page 63, under planetois hulls:

Armor values: Planetoid is armor value 50. Buffered planetoid is armor value 56.

Additional armor may be added to a planetoid: substract the planetoid's current armor value modifier (from the Armor Table) from the desired armor value mass factor

Read to the letter (I guess either I read it wrong or there must be some errata), if you want a buffered planetoid armored at factor 58 (equivalent to armor 6 in CT:HG), your modifier would be 160-135 = 25, while an AF 40 (equivalent to a CT:HG unarmored ship) modifier is 33. If you want to uparmor it to AF 73 (equivalent to CT:HG AF11, and no modifiers difference from AF75, the maximum for a MT TL15 ship), modifier would be 587-135=452. For a planetoid ship, armoring it to AF 58 would have a modifier of 135-80=35, and to armor it to AF 73, modifier would be 587-80= 507

So, a 20 kdton (270000 kl) buffered planetoid left at AF 56 (equivalent to CT:HG AF5) would cost you about MCr 22.9 to transport and tunnel, leaving you 65% of its volume (175500 kl, 13 kdton) for systems. If you want to uparmor it to AF 58 (and so from CT equivalent AF 5 to 6), cost would be MCr 572.5. If you want to uparmor it to AF 73, cost would be MCr 10350.8.

For a planetoid ship (basic armor 50, equivalent to CT:HG AF3), cost for the basic ship would be the same than a buffered planetoid (MCr 22.9), allowing you for 216000 kl (16 kdton) for systems, to uparmor it to AF58, cost would be MCr 801.5, and to uparmor it to AF73, cost would be MCr 11610.3. If allowed to be uparmored to factor

It's not specified if its bonus armor is above the maximum per TL or not. If it is, maximum armor for a TL15 buffered planetoid would be 91 (equivalent to CT:HG AF 17), but the cost for this ship would be MCr 41418. For a planetoid ship maximum armor would be 85 (equivalent to CT:HG AF15), and cost would be 36182.

A standard 20 kdton ship armored at AF 56 would cost you MCr 2106, allowing you all its volume for systems. If armored at AF 58, cost would be MCr 2496. Armoring it to AF 73, cost would be 9157.2.

As you see, planetoids (either buffered or not) are not efficient in MT if you intend to have them heavily armored. They are if you don't intend to uparmor them.

 

[Amber Chancer]

The wording isn't ambiguous, it's just that munchkins choose to believe it is ambiguous. The same "argument" you're making about planetoid armor has been made regarding armor levels of zero.

If it is unambiguous then you should be able to answer, without reference to any exterrnal construction aid, the following question:

"When I add 1,000 tons of hull armour to a buffered planetoid, thereby increasing its armour factor from 6 to 10, is the cost computed according to the formula cost = MCr .3 + .1a per ton MCr 700 (i.e. MCr 0.7 x 1,000 tons of added armour), or is it MCr 1,300 (i.e. MCr 1.3 x 1,000 tons of added armour)?"

As I read the words, by themselves, I am unable to say that either one of those two is plainly right and the other is plainly wrong. Either could have been what is intended. Therefore it is ambiguous wording. It is not a matter of choosing to believe it to be so - it is a matter of finding it impossible to be sure which of two possible interpretations is correct.

And, frankly, I am not really interested in arguments about what constitutes a "munchkin", or a "rules lawyer", or for that matter a "troll" or a "flamer".

Neither am I interested in what arguments other people have made about other questions.

I posted a straightforward question with two possible alternative answers, in the hope that some one or more posters here might indicate which answer they believed to be correct and why. Was that really such an unreasonable thing to do?

 

[mike wightman]

Ever since reading the armour clarification in Trillion Credit Squadron I have used the formula only for armour added on the 0-15 scale.

The +3 or +6 is a bonus you get for the planetoid/buffered planetoid configuration.

I can see your dilemma though - the wording is not clear (but then I argue for a return to armour 0 having a cost, and don't get me started on the tonnage for bay weapons misinterpretation )

 

[far-trader]

There is no ambiguity imo. Page 21:

"The hull may be armored through the addition of stronger material."

Note "addition" there.

A hull that does not ADD armour does not reference the calculation.

A hull that does ADD armour references the calculation for the "addition of stronger material" only.

The buffered planetoid hull going from armour 6 to armour 10 is from the ADDITION of 4 points of armour. That is all that you calculate.

Likewise the old question of "Does armour zero have a cost?" is answered from the same. There is NO "addition of stronger material" to get armour zero so the calculation is not applied.

 

[mike wightman]

Trouble is the wording used on page 29.

Note that the official errata clears this up... but

if no armor is selected, the armor factor in the USP is zero. The armor table indicates formulae for the computation of armor tonnage and cost, based on the factor selected.

So if you select an armour factor of 0, i.e. no armour, you have selected an armour factor and have to consult the table

I know what the wisdom of ages says, but the rules as written are badly written.

And then there is the interpretation of tonnage used for weapons...

(FASA cough cough FASA)

 

[Matt123]

I posted a straightforward question with two possible alternative answers, in the hope that some one or more posters here might indicate which answer they believed to be correct and why. Was that really such an unreasonable thing to do?

In a nutshell, you have my sympathies!

The convention is that you do not have to charge for "no armor" and that planetoid armor is considered "free" (ie: no extra weight or cost beyond that stated for the hull costs).

Bearing in mind that is the accepted convention and accepted conventions make life a little easier when organizing games, I see inconsistencies in the accepted interpretation. In particular the massive leap in cost from "no armor" to "armor-1" in contrast with armor increments from there. Compare this with Strikers interpretation of ship armor (published a year later by the same team of Frank Chadwick and John Harshman and no doubt under development at the same time as HG2).

But the debate has been had and in the general scheme of things its a little point that so long as everyone is on the same page, makes no difference to game play.

On the munchin/lawyer scale, rest assured you are neither. You merely spotted an inconsistency and rightly queried it. Keep doing so.

Cheers
Matt

 

[Amber Chancer]

I'm afriad I'm having very great difficulty seeing what the "no armour" question has to do with the question I asked. They are discrete and separate points.

And I quite accept that you are only adding 4 points of armour - that was my premise, after all.

However, that doesn't solve the problem, or even point the way to the solution.

If you're designing a ship with a conventional hull, and you decide upon a certain armour factor, it has a certain cost per ton. If at the end you find that you actually have enough spare space to add an extra point of armour, and you do so, then that increases the cost not only for the extra point of armourr that you add, but for every other ton of armour previously added, too.

Conceptually, I see no difference between that scenario, and the scenario of adding an extra point (or 4) to a planetoid or armoured planetoid.

In the conventional hull scenario, nobody says "But that can't be right because you should only pay for the extra armour you are adding, not for the armour you have already added". So why (apart from the fact that the rules are clear and unambiguous for conventional hulls, but not for planetoid hulls) does that suddenly become the clinching argument in the case of the planetoids?

 

[Matt123]

So why (apart from the fact that the rules are clear and unambiguous for conventional hulls, but not for planetoid hulls) does that suddenly become the clinching argument in the case of the planetoids?

HG pg 29 second paragraph
Planetoids (configuration 8) have an automatic hull armor factor of 3; buffered planetoids (configuration 9) have an automatic hull armor factor of 6. Additional armor may be added to planetoids.

Automatic is interpreted as already there, free and as a function of the way planetoids are constructed as described under hulls.

Additional armor is interpreted as armor you may add if you chose at the costs indicated on the armor table.

 

[Amber Chancer]

Yes indeed ... and you only pay per ton for the additional armour you put on.

And if I want, I could change the wording on page 23 from "a is desired armour factor" to "a is the number of points of armour added to the hull" and this would clearly and unambiguously resolve both my quandary and the question (insofar as there is one ... which I actually doubt) of whether you are meant to pay anything for armour factor 0.

But equally, I could change it to "a is the final armour rating of the ship" which would unambiguously answer my query, albeit the other way (but not the question, insofar as there is one, of armour factor 0).

Anyway, I'm certainly getting the impression that the balance of opinion here is firmly in favour of construing a as the number of points of added armour rather than the number of points of total armour ... and that is helpful.


Edited to add ... actually, of course, the definition of a applies for both the formula as to the number of tons required for the armour and the formula for how much you pay for it. Changing it to remove ambiguity in the price formula would most likely only introduce fresh ambiguity in the tonnage formula.

Writing rules never was easy (I've done enough of it myself, and never come up with something I was entirely satisfied with) ... and despite the occasional glitch like this, CT has stood the test of 35 years or so - which says something for the overall quality of the product

 

[Carlobrand]

... Rules lawyers use overlooked or elided rules to their advantage. They apply the preexisting rules to the game. Munchkins, in contrast, change the rules to create their advantage. ...

Elided? Ooh, I learned a new word!

Now if I can just figure out how "munchkin" applies to a Traveller player. I can't see how you tell someone's height over the internet.:devil:

If it is unambiguous then you should be able to answer, without reference to any exterrnal construction aid, the following question:

"When I add 1,000 tons of hull armour to a buffered planetoid, thereby increasing its armour factor from 6 to 10, is the cost computed according to the formula cost = MCr .3 + .1a per ton MCr 700 (i.e. MCr 0.7 x 1,000 tons of added armour), or is it MCr 1,300 (i.e. MCr 1.3 x 1,000 tons of added armour)?"

I'm in the MCr 700 camp. All debates about rule wordings aside, I can't find a rational reason for boosting the price based on something (the planetoid hull) that started out mostly free. If the planetoid weren't there, that thousand tons of hull armor would be MCr 0.3 + 0.1a per ton, or MCr. 700. With the planetoid, it's just MCr. 700 worth of armor that happens to be inside a planetoid.

...I posted a straightforward question with two possible alternative answers, in the hope that some one or more posters here might indicate which answer they believed to be correct and why. Was that really such an unreasonable thing to do?

There is often a great gulf between what is reasonable and what is probable. When entering a forum full of argumentative old coots (and I include myself) who've been playing this game longer than about a quarter of the adult population's been alive, a certain amount of unreasonable behavior is to be expected. At our age, we figure, "Why the hell not?":devil:

 

[McPerth]

"When I add 1,000 tons of hull armour to a buffered planetoid, thereby increasing its armour factor from 6 to 10, is the cost computed according to the formula cost = MCr .3 + .1a per ton MCr 700 (i.e. MCr 0.7 x 1,000 tons of added armour), or is it MCr 1,300 (i.e. MCr 1.3 x 1,000 tons of added armour)?"

To my understanding (or assuming), when you design a planetoid/buffered planetoid ship you should design it as a standard ship as if its initial armor was 0, just with less free space and, when finished, add its intrinsic armor (3 for a planetoid or 6 for a buffered planetoid) to the AF.

This reperesents that any armor you are adding is independent of its intrinsic factor, as if you put a steel plate before a soldier to protect him: this steel plate will cost the same regardles the soldier is unarmored or in full battledress.

 

[atpollard]

A more fundamental issue is being largely overlooked here ... the 'ship' is being built INSIDE of a planetoid. Only the drives (which must move the entire planetoid) should be sized based upon the total volume of the planetoid.

Rather than the typical carve-away-everything-except-the-outer-30%-shell planetoid ship, imagine a 1000 dTon system defense base carved out of a 10 million dTon rock. Surely few would argue that the entire 10 million dTon rock should have life support? Nor should one argue that the 'correct' way to up-armor the base would be to encase the entire 10 million dTon rock in an outer shell of bonded-superdense armor with additional inner bracing throughout the entire 10 million dTon rock. Logically, the 1000 dTon base should receive a bonded-superdense armor shell along the inside of the hollowed out space (reducing the usable volume, just as if it were a 1000 dton ship) at a cost comparable to armoring a 1000 dTon ship.

If one chooses to base the armor cost and volume upon the entire planetoid volume, then one (IMHO) is effectively modeling the bolting of armored plates over the surface of the entire rock.

 

[Carlobrand]

... imagine a 1000 dTon system defense base carved out of a 10 million dTon rock. ...

The fuel mileage must be lousy.:devil: