Originally posted by Tobias:
Read the text, not the lists or the tables. If you go by this, it can be read either way.
I disagree, see the post above for the text.
The only ambiguity is the examples of ship design, and if you assume the ship designers got the rules wrong - which has a lot of precedent in GDW ship designs
![Wink ;) ;)]()
- then you can explain this
If you take the example into account, it becomes obvious.
Nope, all that's obvious is that the example designers didn't use the rules as they are written in the book
Assuming that "no armor" needs space much sense as an unarmed ship requiring a chief gunnery officer - which is the same kind of ambiguous wording, and has no example giving counterproof.
Except that there is no ambiguity in the wording for the gunnery section crew for an unarmed ship.
"The ship should have a chief gunnery officer and at least one petty officer for each type of weapon aboard."
No weapons equals no gunners.
I'm not sure if you have a chief gunnery officer for each weapon type though
If no armor is selected, no percentage needs to be allocated to armor - this is obvious from the rules and examples and anything else is deliberate misreading.
I'm not misreading anything, deliberately or otherwise.
As I said earlier, I ignored this rule for years too.
But then I also got bay weapon tonnage remaining mixed up for a while like the FASA designers did
And, while I noticed this when I first read the article, this discussion is the precise reason why I didn't mention it. Whenever there is a rule which requires even a tiny bit of common sense to read, people will gleefully throw their own overboard for an argument's sake.
Regards,
Tobias
It's what tends to happen if rules aren't clear enough, or aren't playtested thoroughly.
It could all have been cleared up through a bit of errata, or even an explanation during a TCS tournament.
Now there's a thought. Did GDW officials or referees have any clarification on this, or is it just a case that so many of us have been using the wrong rule for so long now that the right rule should be ignored completely
This isn't an argument Tobias, it's a civilised discussion.
I'll bet the TML has had a few flames over this one.