Clarifying Weapon Mounts (errata)

[atpollard]

Just for the record, the definition will impact certain areas of 'Chrome' like HG says that a bay is a single mount, so if Mount=Weapon then a missile bay has only 1 launcher firing 1 big missile (50 dT) or really big missile (100 dT). Same for '1 large' Bay Laser or Bay PA or Bay Fusion gun.

On the other hand, if Mount='Turret', then a Bay Mount could house either one large weapon or many small weapons aimed at the same target.

Like I said, this is just chrome and will not impact the actual game mechanics.

 

[atpollard]

Could someone aid my aching brain by listing out something like this:
I (and perhaps DonM) will get a much clearer picture of the arguments with a few concrete examples.

There are also issues of conflicting rules related to the definitions

If you take Mount = Weapon, with 8 mixed triple turrets of 16 lasers and 8 missile launchers, then:
a) 16 lasers are more than 10 mounts and MUST be grouped into Batteries by Turret, (requiring the 2 lasers in each turret to be combined into a single battery).
b) However mixed turrets may not be grouped into batteries.
c) [de facto] This results in forbidding certain combinations of mixed turrets (those with more than 10 of the same type of weapon)

But if you take Mount = Turret, with 8 mixed triple turrets of 16 lasers and 8 missile launchers, then:
1) Grouping weapons is not REQUIRED until there are more than 10 Turrets – which requires an 1100+ dT ship, which cannot mount mixed turrets.
2) Grouping weapons in a mixed turret (like the example) is forbidden – no rules conflict.

 

[Matt123]

Sure, I’ll try …

Good stuff, I'll use your format, with several notes.

Mount = Weapon
First note. Mount does not equal Weapon. A weapon mount = a mount for a weapon. However for the purposes of rules interpretation, when a mount is discussed, it in effect is refering to a single weapon or weapon system. A factor 9 missile weapon system (of many missiles) may be mounted in a bay.

Second note. If mount = weapon, each individual weapon becomes a battery. This is a given from the Turret Weapons table, it follows the format provided in Book 2 and it ensures backwards compatability in rules. (ie: MM's requirement that Book2 ships must be usable in HG battles.)

If you take Mount = Weapon, then the following arrangements are legal:
a)One triple turret operated as 3 batteries of 1 missile weapon
b)Two triple turrets operated as 6 batteries of 1 missile weapon
c) Three triple turrets operated as 9 batteries of 1 missile weapon
c1) Any combination of turrets, mounting 10 missile weapons, operated as 10 batteries of 1 missile weapon

and the following arrangements are illegal - where there are more than 10 weapons of the same type:
d) Four triple turrets operated as 12 batteries of 1 missile weapon
e) Five triple turrets operated as 15 batteries of 1 missile weapon
etc...

Mount = Turret
Third note: If Mount = Turret then the entire turret must be a battery. (or grouped into larger turret batteries.) I don't think there is much debate on this, it is at the core of the arguement for Mount = Turret.

Forth note: Turrets come in 4 types. Single, Dual & Triple configurations and Barbettes. The phrase "Missile Turret" is used within the rules only in examples to describe the contents of a turret, not the turrets "type". (Note 1, Turrets rules)

Now spend a minute or two on re-reading "Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type must group them into batteries." And if you conclude 'this is silly', I agree. I leave it to others to justify.

Nope, on previewing this I won't take the chance that you will pause. Here it is spelled out.
"Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type must group them into batteries."
equals
"Ships with more than ten triple turrets must group them into batteries." Feel free to swap "triple turret" with Single, Dual or Barbette.

If the arguement is that 'of course' a Missile turret is a type of turret, this then falls down with the turret type 'Mixed' forcing that arguement to rely on the 'mixed turret rule' to in effect re-instate what the first two lines state anyway (with the correct reading). This leads to more strangeness, like laser, sand and missile = ok. But my missile supplier cannot provide missile, missile, missile. Ohh, but there goes free Trader Beowolf, with exactly what I want. Whats that, no I can't have that for my navy? Why not...

If you take Mount = Turret, , then the following arrangements are illegal:
a)One triple turret operated as 3 individual missile batteries
b)Two triple turrets operated as 6 individual missile batteries
etc...

If you take Mount = Turret, , then the following arrangements are all legal:
1) One triple turret operated as a missile battery.
2)Two triple turrets operated as a missile battery
3) Three triple turrets operated as a missile battery
4) Four triple turrets operated as a missile battery
5) Five triple turrets operated as a missile battery
6) Six triple turrets operated as a missile battery
7) Seven triple turrets operated as a missile battery
8) Eight triple turrets operated as a missile battery
9) Nine triple turrets operated as a missile battery
10) Ten triple turrets operated as a missile battery

and the following arrangements are illegal:
11) Eleven triple turrets.
13) Thirteen triple turrets

As "Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type must group them into batteries." and neither 11 nor 13 (& other prime numbers) are divisible into smaller groups.

And for those whom may insist on promoting "Missile turret" as a turret 'type'.

the following arrangements are illegal:
11) Eleven missile turrets.
13) Thirteen missile turrets

As neither 11 nor 13 are divisible into smaller groups.

All food for thought.
Matt


Note 1.
"Turrets are installed on hardpoints with single, dual, and triple configurations, and allow the mounting of lasers (...etc)"
Book 5 page 30

 

[Matt123]

There are also issues of conflicting rules related to the definitions.

A couple of slight adjustments.

If you take Mount = Weapon,
with 8 triple turrets of
16 lasers and 8 missile launchers, then:
a) 16 lasers are more than 10 mounts and MUST be grouped into Batteries.
b) By 5 turrets of 15 lasers as batteries of 3 lasers, (the 16th is redundent).
b1) 3 turrets of 8 missile launchers as individual batteries.
c) occasionally if you choose incorrectly, you may have a redundent weapon.

But if you take Mount = Turret,
with 8 triple turrets of
16 lasers and 8 missile launchers, then:
1) Grouping Turrets is not REQUIRED until there are more than 10 Turrets of a type (ie: Triple, etc) – which requires an 1100+ dT ship, which cannot mount mixed turrets.
2) Grouping weapons in a mixed turret (like the example) is forbidden.
3) Which conflicts with Book 2 designs. Which allows a ship to have 8 turrets of 16 lasers and 8 missile launchers in the same HG combat.

 

[Matt123]

Just for the record, the definition will impact certain areas of 'Chrome' like HG says that a bay is a single mount, so if Mount=Weapon then a missile bay has only 1 launcher firing 1 big missile (50 dT) or really big missile (100 dT). Same for '1 large' Bay Laser or Bay PA or Bay Fusion gun.

On the other hand, if Mount='Turret', then a Bay Mount could house either one large weapon or many small weapons aimed at the same target.

Like I said, this is just chrome and will not impact the actual game mechanics.

Only if you adopt literally Mount = Weapon, which is not what is being advocated.

A weapon mount = a mount for a weapon. A weapon system still constitutes a weapon and may be mounted using an appropriate weapon mount into a Bay.

The chrome is safe.

 

[Matt123]

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.

And YOU claim it speaks to 'turret' (without acknowledging it also refers to 'of a type') which is NOT what it says.

The rest of your post (and mine) rely on this core assumption.

This is a timely point to re-ask an unanswered question frm my "Apples and Pears" post (#13), relating to these three sentances.

[FONT=arial,helvetica]

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

[/FONT]
Regardless, the posts in that exchange are now too fragmented. You are replying to my points in isolation, not in context with your previous posts.

 

[robject]

So at least some of this is nomenclature confusion.

If you can design a mixed turret in HG,
Then there automagically are at least two battery factors in that turret.

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.

(Sorry, trying to catch up)

Ohhh, so that's what y'all are worrying over. Wow.

Sounds like each weapon in a mixed turret is essentially a standalone, ungroupable, Factor-1 battery.

H'm.

Still seems unreasonable that you'd need more than one gunner per turret, even if it represents more than one battery (i.e. just like in CT).

And the mismatch with Book 2. Hmmm. Not much of a big deal, tho.

 

[dean]

And YOU claim it speaks to 'turret' (without acknowledging it also refers to 'of a type') which is NOT what it says.

The rest of your post (and mine) rely on this core assumption.

This is a timely point to re-ask an unanswered question frm my "Apples and Pears" post (#13), relating to these three sentances.

[FONT=arial,helvetica][/FONT]
Regardless, the posts in that exchange are now too fragmented. You are replying to my points in isolation, not in context with your previous posts.

Again, my proof and all the points I have made go back to the exact point that a TURRET IS A MOUNT. The proof shows it. The paragraph that talks about batteries illustrates it perfectly, because by explicit rule, bays are automatically A SINGLE battery, and the spinal is A SINGLE BATTERY therefore the ONLY kind of thing left to talk about IS TURRETS and that whole section exclusively discusses HOW MOUNTS MUST AND MAY BE GROUPED INTO BATTERIES. Since the rules specifically already designate bays and spinals as batteries on an individual basis, then the rest of the rules MUST be referring to turrets.

There is no other argument that can be made!!! And, if the TURRET is the mount, then everything else you say is irrelevant.

And by "replying to [your] posts in isolation" I did exactly what you did to MY post.. which was take EACH point as single, isolated, independent thing and try to debunk each point. When in fact it all HAS to be considered together (see my PROOF). You are the one attempting to drag in mixed turret exceptions and small craft rules to attempt to justify your position.

I don't need to. The rules say that weapon mounts are grouped into batteries. The rules say that a battery must be as few as one turret, no less. Done. Proven. Finis.

 

[robject]

Again, my proof and all the points I have made go back to the exact point that a TURRET IS A MOUNT.

I think you're right. A turret is a mount. This is normal usage, and I see no case for an exception here.

the ONLY kind of thing left to talk about IS TURRETS and that whole section exclusively discusses HOW MOUNTS MUST AND MAY BE GROUPED INTO BATTERIES.

And barbettes, right? Anyway, yes, I think this looks right.

The rules say that weapon mounts are grouped into batteries. The rules say that a battery must be as few as one turret, no less. Done. Proven. Finis.

QFT.

With the potential caveat of the degenerate case of the mixed turret, of course.

Mixed turrets, it seems, require a special rule, and it's only tangentially a Book 2 consideration (since even homogeneous triple turrets (e.g.) in CT essentially contain three factor-1 batteries). In short, to avoid the insane proliferation of mixed turrets when there are clearly enough turrets to avoid it, the authors limited the effectiveness of those weapons, preventing us from ganging them into larger battery factors. That's the intent, right?

 

[Matt123]

So at least some of this is nomenclature confusion.

It is all nomenclature confusion. And its source is those first three sentances.

If you can design a mixed turret in HG,
Then there automagically are at least two battery factors in that turret.

(Sorry, trying to catch up)

You are looking at the wrong section. The so called 'mixed turret rule' is not in debate. Go back to those first three sentances.

 

[Matt123]

Again, my proof and all the points I have made go back to the exact point that a TURRET IS A MOUNT. The proof shows it.

Your proof shows quite clearly Apples = Pears. You can link anything with that logic. Mounts are organised into Batteries, Chickens are organised into Batteries therefore Mounts = Chickens.

Your 'proof' proves nothing. And worse, you hide behind it rather than deal with the questions I am raising and the consequences I am demonstrating.

I'll just adapt your paragraph from here. My additions in bold & straight out of the rulebook.

The paragraph that talks about batteries illustrates it perfectly, because by explicit rule, bay weapons are automatically A SINGLE battery, and the spinal mount is A SINGLE BATTERY therefore the ONLY kind of thing left to talk about IS TURRET WEAPONS and that whole section exclusively discusses HOW WEAPONS MUST AND MAY BE GROUPED INTO BATTERIES. Since the rules specifically already designate bay weapons and spinal mounts as batteries on an individual basis, then the rest of the rules MUST be referring to turret weapons.

There is no other argument that can be made!!! And, if the WEAPON is the mount, then everything else you say is irrelevant."

(excepting that I am stating a weapon mount = a mount for a weapon)

 

[dean]

Your proof shows quite clearly Apples = Pears. You can link anything with that logic. Mounts are organised into Batteries, Chickens are organised into Batteries therefore Mounts = Chickens.

Your 'proof' proves nothing. And worse, you hide behind it rather than deal with the questions I am raising and the consequences I am demonstrating.

I'll just adapt your paragraph from here. My additions in bold & straight out of the rulebook.

(excepting that I am stating a weapon mount = a mount for a weapon)

First: It appears YOU are the only person conflating apples and pears. The PROOF is a PROOF, as all things are linked by pure logic in the order illustrated. You cannot break that logic, so you simply ignore it and try to change the definition to suit your "interpretation" of the rules to suit your personal belief.

Your questions and "consequences" of your reading of the rules are irrelevant IF YOU SIMPLY USE TURRETS = MOUNTS. Can you not see that it is YOUR assertion that creates the problem? You set up a straw man with your idea that the individual turret weapon slot = mount, cannot reconcile this idea with the rest of the rules AS WRITTEN, and then go on to ask for changes or clarifications that are unnecessary if you simply use the logical basis that DOES make the rules work and make sense, both internally and with the exceptions as written!

And your attempt to "adapt your paragraph from here. My additions in bold & straight out of the rulebook" fails because it continues to fail to acknowledge that the same place in the rules EXPLICITLY states that "a battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten". It NEVER refers to weapons. It only talks turrets.

Further, let us refer to page 29, where it illustrates an example of how to arrange batteries by using a ship with 80 triple turrets. (Waits for you to read).

The example details the several ways you can do this, but never once tries to divide the battery into less than a one turret unit (or, as I would say, mount).

I will also point out the mixed turret rule ALSO provides a logical refute to your argument: B5 P 29 "On ships 1000 tons and under, mixed turrets...are allowed; in such cases, each weapon is a battery."

Now, do you really think that the last part phrase of the first part clarifying that in this exception case, each weapon is counted as a battery, is necessary if that was the case for all other purposes? If, by default, individual weapons were intended to be designated batteries, why would it need to be restated? It does NOT need to be, as individual weapons are ONLY a battery if they are in a mixed turret, Q.E.D.

Because the smallest battery possible is a turret. That's right there in the rules.

And since the mixed turret rule breaks that rule, they go on to state how those turrets have to be organized into batteries, which is by individual weapons.

Once again (and I admit I let myself get sucked back in) Matt, we will have to agree to disagree unless DonM or MWM uses their special powers to make a direct ruling. And I have appealed to both, and it is either beneath their notice or they believe it is not as big a deal as you (and I) apparently think it is.

Of course, IMO if something is unclear and can cause this much debate, then it deserves a clarification, no matter how unimportant it may seem. But that is not my decision to make.

It is my belief that the majority of Traveller players think it works the way I think it works.

Maybe someone should post a Poll and it can be adjudicated that way. I dunno.

But, there it is. Enjoy!

 

[aramis]

Maybe someone should post a Poll and it can be adjudicated that way. I dunno.

Not that the poll is authoritative. Don and Marc make the decisions on official errata. But both work hard to get feedback.

Click here for poll thread

 

[Icosahedron]

Thanks for the attempts to state the examples, guys. I'm not much the wiser, but that's probably just me.

My take has always been similar to Robject's: The smallest battery is a turret - except in the case of mixed turrets. Mixed turrets are a special case limited to smaller vessels that don't have many turrets available. This is specifically to allow them a range of weapon types within a limited number of turrets.
I'm fairly happy with that, but I'm less sure why a turret containing two lasers and a missile can't fire the pair of lasers as a factor two attack.

 

[Orr]

Not that the poll is authoritative.

The poll is neither authoritative or necessary.

Like the sub-1000 dTon weapon bay "question" Don cleared up last year, this "question" is nothing more than an exercise in semantical pissantry.

The men who wrote the rules being discussed also designed dozens of ships with those rules. Those ships, with the exception of a number of admittedly broken designs which can be counted on one hand, support one and only one interpretation. The intent behind the rules can be easily determined from the use of the rules by the men who actually wrote the rules.

Those suggesting that the rules can mean something else are not only deliberately misinterpreting the text, they are also deliberately ignoring the many examples of the rules' usage by the rules' authors.

As with the earlier "clarification" regarding weapon bays aboard ships smaller than 1000 dTons, the only "fix" needed in this situation is a few words which close the tortured loophole a few people with obscure motives are trying to fly a Tigress through.

 

[far-trader]

I dunno Orr, the examples of canon designs have always seemed more broken exceptions to the rules than designed with the rules. I think I can count on one hand the ones that aren't in some way broken.

 

[BillDowns]

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.

Dean, I am sorry, but I have to agree with Matt123 that this "proof" is invalid regarding the turret vs weapon mount debate.

However, adding a fourth fact from sentence three: "A battery may be as few as one turret".
Logic: This fact alone strongly implies that a battery may not be less than one turret.

Going back to the original courtesy of Matt213:

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

Facts 1 and 2 (from Dean) imply that batteries are not required for mountings of 1 to 10.

This begs the question: How the hell do you use them in a HG battle?

Finally, going back to an assertion by Matt123:

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.

I would have to say if backwards compatibility was actually desired, then this has to be an extremely poor attempt. Besides all the radically different engineering systems, Missiles are drastically down-rated and Beam lasers are drastically up-rated.

 

[BillDowns]

Facts 1 and 2 (from Dean) imply that batteries are not required for mountings of 1 to 10.

This begs the question: How the hell do you use them in a HG battle?

The more I think about it, the more this sounds like Matt123's "out". Take a ship with 15 hardpoints equipped so:

• 4 twin fusion gun turrets
• 3 triple sandcaster turrets
• 3 triple laser turrets
• 5 triple missile turrets

The designer could opt not to organize these as batteries. The implication, then is that these would function as single weapon batteries. Not we get to a new question: Since there are 15 missile weapons, must they be organized in "batteries" per the other rules?

 

[dean]

Dean, I am sorry, but I have to agree with Matt123 that this "proof" is invalid regarding the turret vs weapon mount debate.

However, adding a fourth fact from sentence three: "A battery may be as few as one turret".
Logic: This fact alone strongly implies that a battery may not be less than one turret.

Going back to the original courtesy of Matt213:

Facts 1 and 2 (from Dean) imply that batteries are not required for mountings of 1 to 10.

This begs the question: How the hell do you use them in a HG battle?

Finally, going back to an assertion by Matt123:

I would have to say if backwards compatibility was actually desired, then this has to be an extremely poor attempt. Besides all the radically different engineering systems, Missiles are drastically down-rated and Beam lasers are drastically up-rated.

I get what you are saying about that fuzzy in-between area of 1 - 10 turrets.
IMO it's pretty damn silly to mix a turret, and if you have to use each weapon in the cases of a ship <1000 tons (or ten or less turrets) then you are probably gonna lose your first battle in that ship. The rules make it so larger ships don't have this issue, as they are explicit, so we are really taking ships 100-1000 tons with 10 or fewer turrets.

HOWEVER, if we limit the discussion to how BATTERIES are arranged, rather than worry about "weapon mounts", the rules have a few points that strongly support the "interpretation" I put forward.

First of all, the rule on pg 29 clearly states that "more than ten mounts of the same type must group them into batteries."

Since in the next two sentences, the rules explicitly state that a Bay + it's weapons are automatically a battery, and that the Spinal mount + it's weapon is one battery, the ONLY thing left we have to group is either TURRETS (to use my interpretation) or INDIVIDUAL WEAPONS (to use Matt's interpretation).

Evidence to support my position:
Rules explicitly state the smallest battery is one turret. IF the smallest battery possible UNDER the non-exception rules is ONE TURRET, AND that "Weapon mounts" may and in most cases must be grouped into batteries, then therefore does it not make logical sense that one turret = smallest battery therefore = weapon mount?

It does not state the smallest unit of a battery is a weapon... EXCEPT that mixed turrets do designate EACH weapon in a turret as a separate battery, AND the last phrase of the sentence specifically states that each weapon is the battery ("; in such cases, each weapon is a battery"). SINCE this is a stated EXCEPTION, it negatively infers that it is not the USUAL case, or rule, and that only in mixed turrets (and NOT unmixed ones) are individual turret mounted weapons considered a battery. This exception does not alter the logic leading me (and many others) to conclude that turret=weapon mount; it simply states that in this case, a battery = weapon, and in NO WAY implies that weapon = weapon mount.

I cannot see any evidence in the actual text that makes Matt's argument that each weapon is the mount. All of his points are made by saying:

"LOOK, it doesn't define the term "weapon mount", so therefore it can mean whatever I think it does, and if it means individual weapons, there's all kinds of problems that I can show you" and then he says the whole system is broken.

But if you just take it that weapon mount = turret, all his points disappear.

In addition, as others have said, all the designed vessels I have seen from the game's authors from a Book 5 point of view simply don't try to group batteries in numbers smaller than a turret. The example in the text doesn't either. It says there are other ways to group them but they are sub-optimal and it does not cover them specifically.

The rules also explicitly state that all batteries organized by weapon type MUST be the same factor. So does it really matter? Why the hell would someone take a ship and arm it with lasers in triple turrets and call them 3-factor 1 batteries each?

I mean, if you also consider that the "10 mounts or more" rule also makes it that if you have as few as 4-triple or 5-double unmixed turrets, then you then HAVE to goup them into batteries (if you subscribe to that point of view) anyway, so again it's silly and not supported by the examples, nor the battery grouping table's "optimal" break points, nor the spirit of the HG rules (large ship/fleet design).

Now, if you are an adventurer in a small ship, sure, maybe. But that's not the intent of the HG system, so once again even the intent of the rules set makes that argument spurious.

From a HG perspective, it's suicide either way. If you want that, go use book 2.

 

[pendragonman]

The more I think about it, the more this sounds like Matt123's "out". Take a ship with 15 hardpoints equipped so:

• 4 twin fusion gun turrets
• 3 triple sandcaster turrets
• 3 triple laser turrets
• 5 triple missile turrets

The designer could opt not to organize these as batteries. The implication, then is that these would function as single weapon batteries. Not we get to a new question: Since there are 15 missile weapons, must they be organized in "batteries" per the other rules?

Unless you are using the basic CT ship combat system there is no advantage to not putting them in to batteries.