Clarifying Weapon Mounts (errata)

[DonM]

Because I have waded through several discussions and am just NOT understanding the problem, could folks explain their issue with the HG rules and the existing errata clarification in this thread?

The current clarifications in the errata related to this topic are:

Page 29, Batteries (clarification): The text is somewhat confusing. In order to use the HG Combat rules, all ships must organize their weapons into batteries. All weapons in a mixed turret must be organized as single weapon batteries, even if a mixed turret has more than one of the same weapon in it, and weapons in a mixed turret cannot be organized into batteries with weapons from other turrets (including other identical mixed turrets).
Page 30, Bay Weapons (clarification): When installing hardpoints and bays, the tonnage requirement per item is the minimum needed to allow its installation. That means, a ship from 100 to 199 tons is allowed one hardpoint and the minimum size ship in which a bay may be found is 1000. The rules for small craft mountings are the only exception to this and allow the fixed weapons of a small craft to be quantified for High Guard weapons battery classification.

 

[Matt123]

The existing errata doesn't deal with the issue in question, which has at its core the question of "What is a weapon mount?".

I won't discuss the other arguement in this post, my misguided attempts to summarise the other position in the past have generally not been well recieved! So I leave that to be someone elses job.

If you take the context of previous work (Book 2), a weapon mount = a mount for a weapon. (Note 1)

Book 2 designs are important for HG for two reasons.
- First, MM wanted backwards compatibility (Note 2) ensuring Book 2 designs are integrel to Book 5.
- Second, Book 2 allows for designs of up to 5000 tons carrying up to 50 turrets, with 150 individually firing weapons.
Clearly individual weapon 'Batteries' (Book 5 term) are a key part of Book 2 designs and this had to be carried forward to Book 5.

Sooo, we have Book 2 dealing with individual weapons, perhaps to an extreme. And the new rules for HG Fleet combat need a little more structure, whilst ensuring Book 2 designs are compatable.

The first paragraph of the Batteries section is the 'problem', not one of Franks best bits of writing. (Note 3) In particular the first two sentances discussing the limits on individual Weapons, before the paragraph moves on to discuss (in order) Turrets, Bays, Spinals and how they all fit into the Book 5 Battery system.

Finally, the paragraph finishes with the so called "mixed turret rule". More correctly a rule designed to limit HG, Book 2 look-a-like designs to 1000 tons. Remember that Book 2 designs are legal and can have 'mixed turrets' up to 5000 tons.

The correct interpretation of "weapon mount" will result in Book 5 designed ships able to field Batteries of up to 10 individual weapons of a type mounted in as few as 4 turrets and requiring 10 Gunners. A 5000 ton Book 2 design can already field 150 individual weapons of a type in 50 Turrets and needs only 50 Gunners (Book 2 is 1 Gunner per Turret not Battery).

The clear intention is to allow Book 5 designed ships to have individually firing weapons (up to 10 of a type, mounted on as few as 4 Turrets) exactly the same as the Book 2 ships they fight alongside (albeit Book 2 ships can have 150 of a type...). Similarly Book 5 ships up to 1000 tons can mix those weapons within turrets, just like thier Book 2 collegues of up to 5000 tons.

Fortunately Book 2 designs do not have access to Book 5 armour, agility, heavier weapons, larger hulls etc. Which means Book 2 designs are not very popular for combat roles. This aspect makes the changes to Book 5 design rules effective, Book 2 designs are allowed but nobody wants them. Very sneaky Mr Chadwick, backwards compatable and yet this aspect of the game is 'fixed'

All that is required is Errata to state:
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Page 29, Batteries: The first two sentances refer to individual Weapons before the paragraph moves on to discuss Turrets, Bays and Spinal Mounts in the context of Batteries.[/FONT]

This causes the first two sentance to read "Ships with more than one weapon of a type may group them into batteries. Ships with more than 10 weapons of a type must group them into batteries." Note that a single weapon is already a battery as per the Turret Weapons table. The key concept here is grouping to create bigger batteries.

Don, I hope this helps. I'll now step back & watch the fireworks!

Regards
Matt


Note 1
"Armaments:
...
One turret may be attached to each hardpoint on the ship. When it is attached, one ton for fire control must be allocated. Turrets themselves are available in single, double, and triple mounts which will hold one, two, or three weapons respectively."
Book 2, page 15

Note 2
"DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The ship design and construction system given in Book 2 must be considered to be a standard system for providing ships using off-the-shelf components. It is not superceded by any system given in this book; instead this book presents a system for construction of very large vessels, and includes provisions for use of the system with smaller ships."
Book 5, page 18

Note 3
"Batteries: Ships with more than one weapon mount of a type may group them into batteries. Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type must group them into batteries. A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten, but all batteries of the same type of weapon must have the same weapon code (USP factor). Each bay weapon is automatically a battery. The spinal mount of a ship (if it has one) is a single battery. On ships"1000 tons and under, mixed turrets (weapons of different types in the same turret) are allowed; in such cases, each weapon is a battery."
Book 5, page 29

 

[aramis]

Mount=hardpoint, not mount=weapon slot in turret.

 

[Icosahedron]

Mount=hardpoint, not mount=weapon slot in turret.

This seems to be the crux of the disagreement. Different paragraphs suggest that either of these definitions may be correct, and each leads to different 'legal' weapon arrangements.

Any erratum needs to figure the full ramifications of each definition for turret and battery design and then choose between them. Whichever you choose will not be welcomed by everyone.

 

[aramis]

This seems to be the crux of the disagreement. Different paragraphs suggest that either of these definitions may be correct, and each leads to different 'legal' weapon arrangements.

Any erratum needs to figure the full ramifications of each definition for turret and battery design and then choose between them. Whichever you choose will not be welcomed by everyone.

It's been standard naval terminology for over 100 years (nearly 150... since they started putting 2 weapons per mount in the 1860's...)...

 

[The Oz]

I'll put in for pragmatism: how many published designs over 1000dtons have mixed weapons in the turrets? I know of two: the 2000 dton Zhodani Council Cruiser from AM4, and the 3000 dton Tukera freighter from the Traveller Adventure (which only has two turrets, anyway!).

If the rules are changed to require ships over 1000dtons to not have mixed turrets, would it really make so many ships obsolete?

 

[atpollard]

Because I have waded through several discussions and am just NOT understanding the problem, could folks explain their issue with the HG rules and the existing errata clarification in this thread?

The current clarifications in the errata related to this topic are:

Page 29, Batteries (clarification): The text is somewhat confusing. In order to use the HG Combat rules, all ships must organize their weapons into batteries. All weapons in a mixed turret must be organized as single weapon batteries, even if a mixed turret has more than one of the same weapon in it, and weapons in a mixed turret cannot be organized into batteries with weapons from other turrets (including other identical mixed turrets).

Let me take a shot at explaining the issue as I have been able to follow it.
1. Your page 29 clarification takes care of 90% of the issue.

However, this:

"Batteries: Ships with more than one weapon mount of a type may group them into batteries. Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type must group them into batteries. A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten, but all batteries of the same type of weapon must have the same weapon code (USP factor). Each bay weapon is automatically a battery. The spinal mount of a ship (if it has one) is a single battery. On ships"1000 tons and under, mixed turrets (weapons of different types in the same turret) are allowed; in such cases, each weapon is a battery."
Book 5, page 29

Can be interpreted to mean that a ‘weapon mount’ is the physical mount for a weapon – so a triple turret would contain 3 ‘weapon mounts’ and four triple turrets would contain 4 x 3 = 12 ‘weapon mounts’. Per the underlined sentence, the four turrets/12 weapon mounts ‘must group them into batteries’.

Or the underlined sentence can be interpreted to mean that a ‘weapon mount’ is a hard point (a mount for one to three weapons) – so a triple turret would be 1 ‘weapon mount’ and four triple turrets would contain 4 ‘weapon mounts’. Per the underlined sentence, the four turrets would NOT be required to be grouped into batteries.

Personally, I see it as a non-issue. A ‘weapon mount’ is the same as a hard point when dealing with turret scale weapons (rather than bay or spinal weapons), so page 29 just requires ships over 1000 dTons (with over 10 hardpoints/weapon mounts) to group the turrets into batteries … and as Aramis says, that has been the definition in naval terminology for over 100 years.

 

[Maccat]

Seems to be the book 2 vs book 5 stuff, and far more technical than my preferences, it was also dealt with for the mongoose stuff a lot as well. If you don't use book 5 batteries are moot!

Agreed the stuff on mixed turrets, triple turret with 2 sand and one pulse laser would be 2x sand batteries, 1x pulse laser battery. Mixed turrets like that 1000t or less only. 4 triple of one weapon or 5 dual (10 weapons), would need to have batteries then. OK 10 weapons of any arrangement by harpoints/turrets/wpn mounts would need to have batteries, sure. Agreed the 100-199t one hardpoint, 1000t min for a bay (and per as well, though people have argued that as well i guess lol) 1 bay at 1000t my take on it, and takes 10 hardpoints away as well.

Only thing not covered came to mind for me is small craft, one turret equivalent, and whather that takes the 1t of fire control to use weapons, i do allocate that personally. Also someone was saying something about manning by gunners, one per turret (with slow reload though so more is better!) in bk 2, vs 1 per battery minimum in bk 5, so say 10x triple beam lasers in a single battery needs one gunner, at least per the bk 5 crew section. Oh maybe for trillion credit squadron refit stuff about reconfiguring batteries as an allowable modification through refit without being a new class.

With M6 Ag6 max computer ships, it's almost impossible to hit anything using HG anyhow, i tend to use 6x triple missile turrets for anti fighter and at least have a (slim) chance of hitting things. Many batteries are used as a form of damage soak as well, which i think may be why it's such an issue to some.

Now if i could just use the bk 4 mercenary fire control system for weapons on the ship to reconfigure batteries (heh).

hope this helps/my 2c worth take on it all.

 

[Matt123]

I'll put in for pragmatism: how many published designs over 1000dtons have mixed weapons in the turrets? I know of two: the 2000 dton Zhodani Council Cruiser from AM4, and the 3000 dton Tukera freighter from the Traveller Adventure (which only has two turrets, anyway!).

If the rules are changed to require ships over 1000dtons to not have mixed turrets, would it really make so many ships obsolete?

Its not about the so called 'Mixed Turret Rule'.

Its about whether Book 5 is built on the precepts of Book 2 two where you may have three missile weapons in one turret, fired at three differant targets. Or you can also have three laser weapons, firing individually at the same target. Or...

The opposing view is no, in Book 5 you cannot build advanced Fighting Ships with similar weapon layouts to Book 2 Civilian ships. And this is the consequence of claiming a weapon mount = a turret, which means all weapons within that turret must be part of a battery.

Book 2, weapons are treated individually. The opposing view claims that changes in Book 5, despite MM's obvious and long standing insistence that new products be backwards compatable.

It also leads to a very bizarre reading Batteries paragraph where the third sentance repeats the first two and the last is used by the reader to try and backwards justify the first. And it leads to complicated interpretations of the Turrets paragraph and the Small Craft Weapons paragraph, again to backwards justify the readers underlying assumption that a Weapon Mount = a Turret.

A Weapon mount = A mount for a Weapon

Turrets
Turrets are installed on hardpoints, weapons are mounted in turrets (Book 5, page 30).

Turret Weapons table
The table uses individual weapons to determine Batteries and also states that weapons are mounted in turrets. (Book 5, page 25)

Small Craft, Weapons
May mount the equivalent of one turret, without the turret, only the weapons and thier mountings (you still have the weight of a turret, without the turret). And weapons are mounted. (Book 5, page 34)

 

[dean]

As we have all seen before from the CT errata thread:

In Book 5 2nd edition:

Fact from sentence one: "Weapon mounts may be organized into batteries."
Fact from sentence two: "More than ten mounts of one type must be organized into batteries."
Fact from sentence three: "Turrets may be organized into batteries."
Logic: If weapon mounts may and/or must be organized into batteries (sentences 1 and 2), and turrets can be organized into batteries (sentence 3), therefore turrets are weapon mounts. Not the hardpoint. Not the weapon itself.
Fact from sentence four: "Each bay weapon is a battery."
Logic: If weapon mounts may/must be organized into into batteries, and bays are batteries, and therefore bays are weapon mounts.
Fact from sentence five: "Spinal mounts are a battery."
Logic: If weapon mounts may and/or must be organized into into batteries, and spinals are batteries, therefore spinals are weapon mounts.

This set of statements, which is in effect a "Proof", identifies all statements related to the definition of weapon mounts. Since no other definition exists in the rules, the following must be what constitute weapon mounts: Turrets (and by extension Barbettes), Bays, Spinal Mounts.

Thanks to Matt123 for bringing this thread to my attention; I had seen it but I was tired and didn't want to go to the trouble of replying.

Note than Don Moody does NOT (for some reason) feel that the "mounts" question requires a clarification, even though in my readying of his opinion it's not clarified.

We will also note that Book 2 does in fact differ, as do the rules for "ships less than 1000 tons" and "small craft", which each have their own section, none of which contradicts anything stated above EXCEPT that there is a specific exception to the rules allowing "mixed turrets" which ALSO specifically states each weapon in a mixed turret is organized into it's own battery. Since this is a stated exception it cannot be used to justify making the assertion that each spot in a turret constitutes a "mount", as that entire section does not address mounts at all.

I will also add that if you do it different because you CHOOSE to do so, that's peachy by me. This is just my effort to get some internal consistency and clarity for the official rules set.

 

[aramis]

Because I have waded through several discussions and am just NOT understanding the problem, could folks explain their issue with the HG rules and the existing errata clarification in this thread?

The current clarifications in the errata related to this topic are:

Page 29, Batteries (clarification): The text is somewhat confusing. In order to use the HG Combat rules, all ships must organize their weapons into batteries. All weapons in a mixed turret must be organized as single weapon batteries, even if a mixed turret has more than one of the same weapon in it, and weapons in a mixed turret cannot be organized into batteries with weapons from other turrets (including other identical mixed turrets).

This needs, for the severely AR, to specify whether a ship may use pair of triple laser turrets as 6 factor 1, 3 factor 2, etc.

It also doesn't make sense that a triple turret with 2xLaser and 1xSand shouldn't be a factor 2 laser and a factor 1 sand, but by my read of Bk 5, that's been forbidden since the get-go anyway.

 

[dean]

The simple, complete answer would be:

For all Ships (but not small craft) a weapon mount is a turret, barbette, bay, or spinal position. Small craft may consider the ship itself as a turret (and thus not have to allocate space for a turret).

For all craft under 1000 tons, different weapons may be mounted in a double or triple turret; in these cases each weapon in the mount constitutes an individual battery (even if there are two of the same type in a triple turret, with something else in the last position), and may not be combined with weapons in other mounts for purposes of battery rating.

Note that for small craft only, sand casters do not require a separate gunner for the battery. All other batteries require at least one gunner (see relevant section).


IMHO =]


P.S. The reason I have for stating that this is the simplest complete explanation is that most folks whose "interpretation" differs is because there is no clear, "official" definition of what a "weapon mount" is, and the later "mixed turret" exception and "small craft" rules create an impression that there is more to a 'weapon mount" than meets the eye. Smacking that illusion down would be a big step in making those reasons much more difficult. I guess you could just say "A weapon mount is a turret, barbette, bay, or spinal position." and be done with it, but I'd just as soon be crystalline clear... if what I have been a proponent of is actually correct (which I believe it is).

 

[Matt123]

I figured as the most vocal & knowledgable opposition I have come across, I had best get you along

Besides it is about time I read and commented on your proof as I promised several months ago.

Fact from sentence one: "Weapon mounts may be organized into batteries."
Fact from sentence two: "More than ten mounts of one type must be organized into batteries."
Fact from sentence three: "Turrets may be organized into batteries."
Logic: If weapon mounts may and/or must be organized into batteries (sentences 1 and 2), and turrets can be organized into batteries (sentence 3), therefore turrets are weapon mounts. Not the hardpoint. Not the weapon itself.

Your logic is that sentance three = sentance one. Weapon mounts and Turrets may be organised into batteries. Therefore Weapon Mounts = Turrets.

That is similar to stating "My apples and pears may be organised into piles. Therefore logically Apples = Pears."

That aside, please elaborate why you believe the authors are repeating themselves. As opposed to discussing two seperate objects with distinct names.

And elaborate why under your interpretation, its illegal to have batteries of one turret if you have more than 10 of a type.
(Per your interpretation of sentance two "More than ten turrets of one type must be organized into batteries.")
Within the same battle, this leads to Book 2 ships permitted to use individual weapons in a turret as batteries and Book 5 ships forced to have batteries of at least two turrets (where they have more than ten of a type).

I can go on with the rest of the proof, but the core issue is those first three sentances.

 

[Matt123]

It also doesn't make sense that a triple turret with 2xLaser and 1xSand shouldn't be a factor 2 laser and a factor 1 sand

Whole-heartedly agree. Under the interpretation I have had since the early '80s, thats never been an issue.

 

[dean]

I figured as the most vocal & knowledgable opposition I have come across, I had best get you along

Besides it is about time I read and commented on your proof as I promised several months ago.



Your logic is that sentance three = sentance one. Weapon mounts and Turrets may be organised into batteries. Therefore Weapon Mounts = Turrets.

That is similar to stating "My apples and pears may be organised into piles. Therefore logically Apples = Pears."

That aside, please elaborate why you believe the authors are repeating themselves. As opposed to discussing two seperate objects with distinct names.

And elaborate why under your interpretation, its illegal to have batteries of one turret if you have more than 10 of a type.
(Per your interpretation of sentance two "More than ten turrets of one type must be organized into batteries.")
Within the same battle, this leads to Book 2 ships permitted to use individual weapons in a turret as batteries and Book 5 ships forced to have batteries of at least two turrets (where they have more than ten of a type).

I can go on with the rest of the proof, but the core issue is those first three sentances.

Even if you call "weapon mounts" and "turrets" "apples" and "pears" respectively, the rule still makes turrets EQUIVALENT to weapon mounts (as both turrets and weapon mounts MAY be organized into batteries (weapon mounts "must" be so if there are more than 10, turrets "may" be so organized, apparently limitlessly from n to n * countofturrets).

Does not change the fact that turrets are = weapon mounts and in no other place in the rules describes a situation where a weapon mount equals either the spot in the turret where a weapon resides, nor the hardpoint where a turret resides.

I will also point out that the full text pulls it all together logically:

"Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type must group them into batteries. A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten, but all batteries of the same type of weapon must have the same weapon code (USP factor). Each bay weapon is automatically a battery. The spinal mount ... is a single battery."

This section of page 29 also makes clear that a battery is "as few as one turret" (aside from the mixed turret exception) and therefore one turret = a mount because the sentence RIGHT BEFORE that says "mounts of the same type must group them into batteries".

Again, I grant the "mixed turret" exception, but an exception is in no way a place to draw conclusions about the general rule (and in fact is quite the opposite). In addition, the small craft rules are rules unto themselves and cannot be applied to the ship rules; this is why they exist in a separate section.

Finally, I do have to point out that ALL the battery tables operate at the level of turrets = weapon mounts. That they are structured as such is evidence of the authors original intent, in my eyes. Generally, multiples of three are represented for lasers and missile racks, and multiples of two for energy weapons, because that's what makes sense to do. There are also breaks for single weapons, reflecting the ability to do single weapon and mixed turrets within the rules.

 

[Matt123]

Even if you call "weapon mounts" and "turrets" "apples" and "pears" respectively, the rule still makes turrets EQUIVALENT to weapon mounts (as both turrets and weapon mounts MAY be organized into batteries (weapon mounts "must" be so if there are more than 10, turrets "may" be so organized, apparently limitlessly from n to n * countofturrets).

Only in as much as apples and pears are similar.

But that aside, you selectively ignore that the first sentance and third both also talk about weapons, one refering to "weapon mounts of a type", the other refering to "type of weapon".

But pursueing your angle for a moment longer. If "weapon mount" = "turret". The first and second sentance then talks about turret types. If you have more than 10 Triple turrets you must group them into batteries. But... the third sentance state a battery may be a few as one turret.

The interpretation you are applying leaves this section and those following in a mess (Turrets rules, Turret Weapons table and Small Craft). To the point you have to dis-own the Small Craft rules to keep the inconsistences down.

A weapon mount = A mount for a weapon. Nothing else needs to be stated. And all those other niggling little inconsistencies go away.

Does not change the fact that turrets are = weapon mounts and in no other place in the rules describes a situation where a weapon mount equals either the spot in the turret where a weapon resides, nor the hardpoint where a turret resides.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Turrets
Turrets are installed on hardpoints, weapons are mounted in turrets (Book 5, page 30).

Turret Weapons table
The table uses individual weapons to determine Batteries and also states that weapons are mounted in turrets. (Book 5, page 25)

Small Craft, Weapons
May mount the equivalent of one turret, without the turret, only the weapons and thier mountings (you still have the weight of a turret, without the turret). And weapons are mounted. (Book 5, page 34) [/FONT]

I will also point out that the full text pulls it all together logically:

"Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type must group them into batteries.

Hmm, all Triple turrets must be grouped into batteries.

A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten, but all batteries of the same type of weapon must have the same weapon code (USP factor).

Hmm, difficult when all Triple turrets must be grouped. And does this means I can only have Triple turrets for one type of weapon?

Each bay weapon is automatically a battery. The spinal mount ... is a single battery."

"Bay weapon, is refering to the weapon, not the bay. Just as turret weapon refers to the weapon, not the turret and spinal mount refers to the weapon, not the spine of the ship.

Bay, Turrets and Ship Spines cannot of themselves form batteries. The weapons they hold; Bay weapons, Turret weapons and Spinal weapons are the constituant parts of batteries.

Note that Bay Weapons and Spinal weapons form a battery from one weapon. In the first sentance, a single weapon may also form a battery of one. In the second sentance more than 10 weapons must be grouped.

This section of page 29 also makes clear that a battery is "as few as one turret"

"may be as few as one turret", clearly it is impossible to have less than one turret, turret fractions do not exist. Additionally there is no qualifier preventing Book 5 ships emulating Book 2 ships in having three seperate Missile batteries within a turret. Each of those three batteries is "as few as one turret".

Again, I grant the "mixed turret" exception, but an exception is in no way a place to draw conclusions about the general rule (and in fact is quite the opposite). In addition, the small craft rules are rules unto themselves and cannot be applied to the ship rules; this is why they exist in a separate section.

Your interpretation forces these inconsistencies upon you. Abandon your views, join the dark side and these probems suddenly are not problems any more. They are consistent with the view that Book 5 builds on Book 2, Book 2 ships are an integral part of HG and a weapon mount = a mount for a weapon as described/assumed in both Book 2 and Book 5.

Finally, I do have to point out that ALL the battery tables operate at the level of turrets = weapon mounts. That they are structured as such is evidence of the authors original intent, in my eyes. Generally, multiples of three are represented for lasers and missile racks, and multiples of two for energy weapons, because that's what makes sense to do. There are also breaks for single weapons, reflecting the ability to do single weapon and mixed turrets within the rules.

You forget to point out that turrets come in three sizes and as such all your options are covered!

Otherwise I would point out Beam#5 & Pulse#4 each need 10 weapons, Sand#4, 5, 6 need 8, 10 & 20 weapons respectively. But I won't because you arguement here neglects the fact that the foundation of a Turret Weapons Battery, is the number of Turret Weapons, not the number of Turrets. I can in fact have a Beam#5 battery in anything from 10 turrets to 4 without it impacting the USP Code of the battery.

And of course the Turret Weapons table states;
"Particle accelerators may be mounted only one per turret (or barbette). Plasma guns and fusion guns may be mounted two per turret. All other types may be mounted three per turret."

 

[Icosahedron]

Could someone aid my aching brain by listing out something like this:

"If you take Mount = Weapon, the following arrangements are illegal:
a)
b)
c)
But if you take Mount = Turret, the following arrangements are illegal:
x)
y)
z)

Presumably the results are something everyone can agree on...

I (and perhaps DonM) will get a much clearer picture of the arguments with a few concrete examples.

 

[dean]

Only in as much as apples and pears are similar.

But that aside, you selectively ignore that the first sentance and third both also talk about weapons, one refering to "weapon mounts of a type", the other refering to "type of weapon".

No, it does not. It says:

Sentence 1: "Weapon mounts may be organized into batteries."
Sentence 2: "More than ten mounts of one type must be organized into batteries."
Sentence 3: "Turrets may be organized into batteries."

You claim above that the second sentence speaks to "type of weapon". that is NOT what it says. First sentence says "weapon mounts", the second sentence reduces this to "mounts" for conciseness, and the third speaks to another fact entirely. They are all loosely related and are all tied into the one organized thought when MWM says that:

"Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type must group them into batteries. A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten, but all batteries of the same type of weapon must have the same weapon code (USP factor). Each bay weapon is automatically a battery. The spinal mount ... is a single battery."

But pursueing your angle for a moment longer. If "weapon mount" = "turret". The first and second sentance then talks about turret types. If you have more than 10 Triple turrets you must group them into batteries. But... the third sentance state a battery may be a few as one turret.

It CLEARLY says if you have 10 mounts they MUST be organized into batteries. Soooo... if you have 10 triple turrets you MUST designate them into batteries. Since they MUST have the same USP, your choices are limited to 2-5 (15 weapon) turret batteries, 1-10 turret battery (30 weapon), or 10-1 Turret batteries (3 weapons each - this last one illustrates the rule that a battery can be NO FEWER than 1 turret).

IN FACT.. I just realized that this CLEARLY supports MY assertion as (1) it says you have to organize 10 mounts or more into a battery, and (2) it says that bays are automatically a battery, and (3) it states that spinals are a single battery, and since there are no other possible items that CAN be a "mount", BESIDES THOSE THREE, then therefore TURRETS=MOUNTS. Aside from bays and spinals, what's left? TURRETS. What's the only thing you can organize into a battery level grouping? TURRETS. It also SPECIFICALLY STATES that a "battery" is NO LESS THAN A SINGLE TURRET, so therefore a MOUNT is a TURRET.

The interpretation you are applying leaves this section and those following in a mess (Turrets rules, Turret Weapons table and Small Craft). To the point you have to dis-own the Small Craft rules to keep the inconsistences down.

I don't have to dis-own anything. The small craft rules APPLY TO SMALL CRAFT. Not to ships. They are exceptions to the GENERAL rules as they apply to ships vs. small craft, just like the "mixed weapons" exception applies.

Again, I am not asking you to like what is... but it is what it is.

A weapon mount = A mount for a weapon. Nothing else needs to be stated. And all those other niggling little inconsistencies go away.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Turrets
Turrets are installed on hardpoints, weapons are mounted in turrets (Book 5, page 30).

Which does not magically make them "weapon mounts". I can "mount" a horse.. does that make it a weapon mount? No. The rules you are citing are part of the general construction rules on designing ships. The rules I cite are specifically in reference to batteries, and those rules are the ones that cite "weapon mounts".

Turret Weapons table
The table uses individual weapons to determine Batteries and also states that weapons are mounted in turrets. (Book 5, page 25)

Small Craft, Weapons
May mount the equivalent of one turret, without the turret, only the weapons and thier mountings (you still have the weight of a turret, without the turret). And weapons are mounted. (Book 5, page 34)

[/FONT]

Same thing. Not relevant to the Batteries discussion.

Hmm, all Triple turrets must be grouped into batteries.

Hmm, difficult when all Triple turrets must be grouped. And does this means I can only have Triple turrets for one type of weapon?

NO WHERE do I or the rules state this. I have no idea where you conjured this up from. Can't comment, cause it just isn't true.

"Bay weapon, is refering to the weapon, not the bay. Just as turret weapon refers to the weapon, not the turret and spinal mount refers to the weapon, not the spine of the ship.

Bay, Turrets and Ship Spines cannot of themselves form batteries. The weapons they hold; Bay weapons, Turret weapons and Spinal weapons are the constituant parts of batteries.

Wrong. It is the GROUPING of those constituent parts that form BATTERIES.

And, since EACH BAY is a BATTERY, by rule, and EACH SPINAL is a BATTERY, by the rule (see above), then the only thing left is turrets and (to use your term) "turret weapons". And, since BY THE WORD OF THE RULE, the MINIMUM BATTERY SIZE is exactly one turret (and it does not matter if it is a single, double, or triple turret), then we are only talking about the sum of the weapons contained IN the TURRET (aka the WEAPON MOUNT).

Note that Bay Weapons and Spinal weapons form a battery from one weapon. In the first sentance, a single weapon may also form a battery of one. In the second sentance more than 10 weapons must be grouped.

Already debunked THIS ridiculous argument TWICE, by quoting the exact verbage of the RULE itself, which I see you go on to quote below....

"may be as few as one turret", clearly it is impossible to have less than one turret, turret fractions do not exist. Additionally there is no qualifier preventing Book 5 ships emulating Book 2 ships in having three seperate Missile batteries within a turret. Each of those three batteries is "as few as one turret".

Um, NO. One turret is the sum of all the weapons in the turret. YOUR point of view enforced on MY point of view (eg. the official rules) is what causes these inconsistencies. Turret fractions DO NOT exist. There are non-mixed turret batteries which are comprised of the sum of all turrets (which must have the same USP, by rule) having that factor.

Mixed turrets are not "fractional turrets", they are batteries which divide the turret contents into individual weapon factors BY RULE. It's an exception, and one that's apparently bafflingly obscure to you, but nonetheless is still an exception.

Your interpretation forces these inconsistencies upon you. Abandon your views, join the dark side and these probems suddenly are not problems any more. They are consistent with the view that Book 5 builds on Book 2, Book 2 ships are an integral part of HG and a weapon mount = a mount for a weapon as described/assumed in both Book 2 and Book 5.

Once again, the way I (and the official rules) see it is NOT internally inconsistent. You are using your own, er, interesting, point of view to construct a reality that I truly, now, cannot fathom. You are creating rules where none exist (triple turrets must be organized into batteries always?), and failing to acknowledge that small craft and mixed turret rules are BY NECESSITY and DESIGN exceptions to the written rules text, and specifically to the battery rules.

You forget to point out that turrets come in three sizes and as such all your options are covered!

Otherwise I would point out Beam#5 & Pulse#4 each need 10 weapons, Sand#4, 5, 6 need 8, 10 & 20 weapons respectively. But I won't because you arguement here neglects the fact that the foundation of a Turret Weapons Battery, is the number of Turret Weapons, not the number of Turrets. I can in fact have a Beam#5 battery in anything from 10 turrets to 4 without it impacting the USP Code of the battery.

And of course the Turret Weapons table states;
"Particle accelerators may be mounted only one per turret (or barbette). Plasma guns and fusion guns may be mounted two per turret. All other types may be mounted three per turret."

Er, no, because the turret size is irrelevant. If you have 9 single turrets, they are not required to be organized into batteries. If you have 10, they are. Note that you can still choose to have 10 single batteries of crappy USP factor. The foundation of a BATTERY is the sum of the number of total weapons in all turrets in the battery, with the MINIMUM required number = the size of the MOUNT (be it a triple, double, or single turret or barbette).

I will note you can in fact make all kinds of foolish design decisions if you want to assign all your weapons as factor-1 or -2 batteries in low count numbers with a huge number of batteries. I'd only recommend it if designing a ship to fend off swarms of low TL fighters or missiles.

The OPTIMAL (and it even says that right in the design sequence) way to organize your batteries is to use the largest allowed mount (Triple Turret for lasers and missiles, Double Turret for energy weapons) and organize them into the smallest number of total weapons (in turret-capacity multiples) to meet the largest factor possible. Again, there may be design reasons you might choose not to do this, but in general optimal design is, well, optimal.

 

[dean]

BTW matt.. as much as I love sparring with you....

I just wasted 40 minutes of my life trying to make you see what is clearly there, and know I got nowhere and probably went backwards. I will gladly answer questions of other posters.

Cheers!

See you in the Clusters!

 

[atpollard]

Could someone aid my aching brain by listing out something like this:
"If you take Mount = Weapon, the following arrangements are illegal:
a)
b)
c)
But if you take Mount = Turret, the following arrangements are illegal:
x)
y)
z)
Presumably the results are something everyone can agree on...
I (and perhaps DonM) will get a much clearer picture of the arguments with a few concrete examples.

Sure, I’ll try …

"Batteries: Ships with more than one weapon mount of a type may group them into batteries. Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type must group them into batteries. A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten, but all batteries of the same type of weapon must have the same weapon code (USP factor). Each bay weapon is automatically a battery. The spinal mount of a ship (if it has one) is a single battery. On ships"1000 tons and under, mixed turrets (weapons of different types in the same turret) are allowed; in such cases, each weapon is a battery."
Book 5, page 29

"If you take Mount = Weapon, then the following arrangements are legal:
a)One triple missile turret operated as 3 individual weapons (no batteries)
b)Two triple missile turrets operated as 6 individual weapons (no batteries)
c) Three triple missile turrets operated as 9 individual weapons (no batteries)

and the following arrangements are illegal:
d) Four triple missile turrets operated as 12 individual weapons (no batteries)
e) Five triple missile turrets operated as 15 individual weapons (no batteries)
f) Six triple missile turrets operated as 18 individual weapons (no batteries)
g) Seven triple missile turrets operated as 21 individual weapons (no batteries)
h) Eight triple missile turrets operated as 24 individual weapons (no batteries)
j) Nine triple missile turrets operated as 27 individual weapons (no batteries)
k) Ten triple missile turrets operated as 30 individual weapons (no batteries)
l) Eleven triple missile turrets operated as 33 individual weapons (no batteries)


But if you take Mount = Turret, , then the following arrangements are all legal:
1) One triple missile turret operated as 3 individual weapons (no batteries)
2)Two triple missile turrets operated as 6 individual weapons (no batteries)
3) Three triple missile turrets operated as 9 individual weapons (no batteries)
4) Four triple missile turrets operated as 12 individual weapons (no batteries)
5) Five triple missile turrets operated as 15 individual weapons (no batteries)
6) Six triple missile turrets operated as 18 individual weapons (no batteries)
7) Seven triple missile turrets operated as 21 individual weapons (no batteries)
8) Eight triple missile turrets operated as 24 individual weapons (no batteries)
9) Nine triple missile turrets operated as 27 individual weapons (no batteries)
10) Ten triple missile turrets operated as 30 individual weapons (no batteries)

and the following arrangements are illegal:
11) Eleven triple missile turrets operated as 33 individual weapons (no batteries)


I underlined the differences.
I’d like to see if anyone else can come up with a different specific example where the definition matters.