Clarifying Weapon Mounts (errata)

[dean]

So, I was taking a shower..

And had an epiphany.

If matt is correct and weapon = mount, then the phrase "and in this case each weapon is a battery" is redundant and unnecessary, AND the the example IS wrong, because it does not include the cases that would also be optimal, AND the combat rules and all these other things need errata.

But matt really hasn't presented any "hard" evidence he is correct , and in fact all of his attempts to support his argument I can show WORK with the rule being turret = mount just as well as they work with his assertion that weapon = battery, so those are not really supportive of his argument either. At best it's a wash.

Lately, in refuting by points, he has taken to saying that the phrasing is wrong, the example in the book is wrong, etc. In effect, he is trying to prove a negative, which as (I hope) we all know cannot be done.

So once again I wind back up at the facts:

The rules were intended to be backwards compatible.
Smaller ships <1000 tons are considered adventurer ships and were until book 5 derived from book 2.
The intent of book 5 is navies and fleets, design, construction and combat.
The rules state smaller ships may group weapons into batteries.
The rules in general require larger ships to group their weapons into batteries.
The smallest unit of a battery is a turret. Rules state it explicitly, and the turret weapons table supports this.

So the question still remains: is a weapon mount a turret?

If no then all the errata Matt is looking for is needed.

If Yes then it all just works.

 

[dean]

Dean, do you ever get the idea that Matt is being this obstinate for the sole reason of causing more argument?

LOL. I dunno. Maybe. Yea.
I can see where a person might come to the conclusions he originally had, but since I think we both generally go at it with a sense of good humor and not personal attacks and flames ("That's just stupid!" types of statements), no harm no foul.

Aside from my time, of course, I have no vested interest in how this all goes down. At the same time, I do think it works the way I think it works, and for my purposes will continue to do it that way. If the official interpretation states otherwise, however, it's still no skin off my back because they way I think it works is still legal by the rules using either interpretation; that is to say any ships I design using weapon = mount will still be valid designs.

His would not necessarily be legal in all cases under turret=mount, however.

And, at the same time, I am (obviously) being OCD on this topic (because to me it is clear), and I would LIKE for "my" version (e.g., CT) of Traveller to have a consistent interpretation across all users. House rules are fine, but (for example) he and I are in a TCS game together and I think that's where the debate actually arose - and the official ruling should be clear enough that there is no debate.

 

[DonM]

Ok... I'd like one more piece of information.

What is the end result in the game of either interpretation?

In other words, what would be ruled illegal, or what would be allowed that otherwise would not be?

 

[aramis]

Ok... I'd like one more piece of information.

What is the end result in the game of either interpretation?

In other words, what would be ruled illegal, or what would be allowed that otherwise would not be?

Mount=Weapon:

• creates an overlap zone (the 400-999Td range) in the must organize rule and mixed turret rule
• A number of mixed turret designs now must arrange batteries
• does not solve any extant problems
• is a minority opinion
• is inconsistent with previous rulings on the matter (in T20)
• is inconsistent with real-world naval use of the term

Mount=Turret, Barbette, Bay or Spinal:

• no overlap of must organize and mixed turret rules (anything big enough to be forced to organize batteries is too big for the mixed turret rule.
• No requirement to organize batteries.
• Is consistent with rulings in T20
• Is the majority opinion (Poll shows about a 9:5 ratio as I write this)
• does not solve any extant problems
• is consistent with real world use of the term

 

[Matt123]

And, pray tell, what is the purpose of that restriction IF by allowing the batteries to be grouped on a by-weapon basis you FUNCTIONALLY get the same results???

The purpose of preventing mixed turrets from forming larger batteries, is to avoid the arguements that come about when one of those batteries takes damage.

This was debated extensively a long time ago, I think on TML (can't swear on that). With the OP concerned that 30 turrets containing missile, Laser, Sand could form 3 batteries of 30 weapons. If a battery takes damage, it is difficult to picture how it would take damage without affecting others. The 'mixed turret rule' prevents that scenario.

IN both cases I can create the same battery factors with or without the mixed turret rule. Which makes that last phrase in the mixed turret rule sentence completely irrelevant!! Why specify that condition if it does not matter?

It has never been about 'allowing' single weapons if a turret is mixed. Single weapons are already allowed. It is about avoiding conflicts between players when it comes to allocating damage.

The turret weapons table is there to tell you ...snip...

So contrary to your supposition, it's not for "ungrouped weapons".

Clearly (& in your own arguement you give examples), it allows for "un-grouped" weapons. A single weapon IS an ungrouped weapon.


Just to put the next 'quote' in context. I state
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Under mount = turret, that example is incorrect.
More than 10 turrets of a type must be grouped.
The example gives 80 triple turrets.
Clearly those 80 triple turrets are more than 10 and must be grouped.
Single turret batteries are illegal. (in this example of more than 10 triple turrets.)"[/FONT]

Wrong. It surely does. I CANNOT BELIEVE that I just read that you think that the AUTHORS are wrong.

No... I think your interpretation of the rules is incorrect and the authors example does not support your view.

Soo... tell me how 80 turrets is not more than 10.

Ships with more than 10 Mounts (as turrets) of the same type MUST group them into batteries.

A battery MAY BE AS FEW AS one turret,

Now tell me why you consider the imperitive "MUST" is outweighed by the "MAY".

I need a coherant arguement please, not bluster.

80 turrets is more than 10 and therefore MUST be grouped. Under these conditions, the minimum group is 2 turrets.

Ergo, under your interpretation, the authors example is wrong. Or your interpretation (Mount = Turret) is wrong.

You flatly state above that "Single Turret Batteries Are Illegal".

Yes.
If Mount = Turret, more than 10 turrets of a type MUST be grouped.
Single turrets of a type are legal only if you have 10 or less.

Can't be so. So WHAT does that sentence mean, if not that BATTERIES can be ONE TURRET? Please share!

The phrase is "MAY be as few as one turret or as many as ten...".
Provided you meet the "MUST" imperitive, you "MAY" have a battery as few as one turret.

It doesn't seem complicated to me. A bit odd perhaps, but not complicated. Fortunately Mount = Turret is not my arguement otherwise I too would be attempting to bluster my way out of this conundrum.

For clarity I repeat the questions.
1. Is 80 more than 10?
2. How is a "MUST" imperitive overruled by a "May"?


We move onto a weapon mount = a mount for a weapon.

Don't you think that if it was "legal" to make 240 factor 1 batteries, as that IS IN FACT SUPPORTED by the weapons table, by your own interpretation (above), and WOULD be "optimal" by your argument, the authors would have / should have included it?

Did you really miss the bit "more than 10 mounts MUST be grouped"?
1. 240 individual weapons are more than 10.
2. Therefore they MUST be grouped.

The example provided by the authors is in fact correct. A listing of 240 Batteries for this ship is not a legal option.

 

[Matt123]

That last post is a little long. I'll summarise.

Mount = Turret.

Batteries section rules, sentance 2.
Ships with more than ten [turrets] of the same type must group them
into batteries.

80 triple Laser turrets MUST be grouped into batteries. Single turret batteries are illegal where you have more than 10 of a type.

Absent from Deans post (or anyone else, I don't want to pick on Dean!) is any discussion on what Turret 'types' are.

The rules give weapon types and the "Turret" section describe various 'types' of turrets & turret configurations (single, duel, triple & barbette). Turret 'type' however is not clearly given.

A weapon mount = a mount for weapon.

Batteries section rules, sentance 2.
Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type must group them
into batteries.

The 240 Laser weapons in 80 triple turrets MUST be grouped into batteries. Single turret batteries comply where you have more than 10 weapons of a type. Single weapon batteries are illegal where you have more than 10 weapons of a type.

And Weapon 'types' are defined in the first "Weaponry" section (page 18)

 

[travlar]

So, if 'mount' refers to the individual mounting for each weapon, not the turret, then why do they talk about mounts at all? Why not just talk about the weapon?

 

[Matt123]

"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."

Pretty clear to me - if you have 10 or less beam lasers you can choose to fire them as individual weapons.

That literally says you can choose to not organize them into batteries. It doesn't say anything about how you can employ them in combat.

Book 5 combat rules on page 40 talk about the A. thru E. combat steps; they are refer to battery fire. Nothing there about individual weapon fire.

To quote you, The Turrets Weapons table allows for single weapons. Not in dispute are single weapons found in single turrets, mixed turrets & small craft.

A single weapon gets a battery USP.

The rest of that post is built on sand

Alas, perhaps due to the use of the word "MAY" in that one place, you guys are right. BUT ALL the other rules (design and combat) and tables make it pretty damn clear that in HG, weapons are INTENDED to be grouped into batteries.

OMG, you are not implying the authors got it wrong!

 

[Matt123]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Here is a proof for “weapon mount = a mount for a weapon”.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 1. Book 2 ships can only use individual weapons which may be mounted up to three in a turret.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 2. MM's requirements for Book 5 included that ships from Book 2 be compatable and legal in the Book 5 system.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 3. Book 5 specifically states “Book 2 must be considered to be a standard system for providing ships using off-the-shelf components” and “It is not superceded by any system given in this book...” (Book 5, page 18)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Proving Book 5 is intended to be capable of [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]a single turret mounting up to three same type weapons, as three independent batteries.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 4. Book 5 uses the Turret Weapons table, which uses individual weapons and grouped weapons to establish battery USP.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 5. Single weapon turrets, mixed turrets and small craft all use individual weapons as batteries.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Proving, there is means to create and clear examples of a single turret mounting up to three individual weapon batteries in Book 5, that are not in dispute.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 6. The “Turrets” section has no less than seven referances to weapons being mounted in turrets.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 7. The “Turrets Weapon” table has no less than five referances to weapons being mounted or contained in turrets.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 8. The “Turrets” section refers three times to turrets being “installed” or “emplaced”.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 9. The “Turrets” section does not use “mount” to describe attaching Turrets to hardpoints or ships.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Proving that the rules consider turret weapons to be mounted in Turrets. That the use of the phrase “mount” is used exclusively within the Turrets section to describe weapons being placed into Turrets. And that within the rules, turrets are not considered to be “mounted” onto ships (instead, installed or emplaced).[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 10. The Turret section, instructs that;[/FONT]
“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Turret Weapons table [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]indicates each [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]type of turret weapon[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] in column and the nine possible USP code ratings in rows. The number at the intersection is the number of[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] weapons of the type indicated r[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]equired to achieve the USP code rating.”[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Proving that the Turret section and the Turret Weapons table, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]both consider batteries to be composed of weapons, not turrets.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Proving Batteries are formed of individual weapons. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 10. The opening paragraph of the Batteries Section discusses weapon mounts, that you may group them into batteries. More than 10 of a type and you must group them. Batteries may occupy from one to ten turrets. And that batteries of the same weapon type must have the same USP code.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A weapon mount = a mount for a weapon.[/FONT]

 

[Matt123]

So, if 'mount' refers to the individual mounting for each weapon, not the turret, then why do they talk about mounts at all? Why not just talk about the weapon?

Good question. And that is just as relevent if you think "why didn't they just say 'turret'?"

Personally I don't have an answer to that one.

I do think it is compounded tho if you use mount = turret. You then have to also ask "why repeat in sentance 3, what you just said in sentance 1?"

 

[Matt123]

Mount=Turret, Barbette, Bay or Spinal:

• is consistent with real world use of the term

I found last night a very interesting read "Naval Ordnance 1937" from the US Navy. A very interesting read.
http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/NAVAL-ORDNANCE-1937.html (sections 903 & 919)

Aramis is partly correct.

A US Tech 5-8 (?) Wet Navy turret is a subset of mounts.

The primary components of a mount are

1. the slide,
2. the carrage and
3. the stand.

US naval turrets (1937) include these components, which are built into the structure of the turret. They also include the following Major Structural Subdivisions.

1. the turret proper
2. the turret foundation (equivalent to a hardpoint?)
3. the barbette (protecting the turret components from deck level to below decks. Stationary, does not rotate)
4. the revolving turret structure (within the barbette)

Where Aramis is correct, is that this entire assembly from turret proper to powder room and magazine below, is called in the US Navy in 1937, a "Turret Mount".

Where I am also correct, is that the "Turret Mount" includes the "Weapon Mount" components of the slide, carrage and stand. Without those three components, the weapon could not be mounted in the turret.

I will satisfy myself will only mentioning in passing my scepticism at using 19th & 20th century navy terminology and applying it to Traveller.

For example, I now have a 'new' meaning for 'Barbette' and it certainly cannot hold a particle accelerator!

 

[dean]

That last post is a little long. I'll summarise.

Mount = Turret.

Batteries section rules, sentance 2.
Ships with more than ten [turrets] of the same type must group them
into batteries.

80 triple Laser turrets MUST be grouped into batteries. Single turret batteries are illegal where you have more than 10 of a type.

Absent from Deans post (or anyone else, I don't want to pick on Dean!) is any discussion on what Turret 'types' are.

The rules give weapon types and the "Turret" section describe various 'types' of turrets & turret configurations (single, duel, triple & barbette). Turret 'type' however is not clearly given.

A weapon mount = a mount for weapon.

Batteries section rules, sentance 2.
Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type must group them
into batteries.

The 240 Laser weapons in 80 triple turrets MUST be grouped into batteries. Single turret batteries comply where you have more than 10 weapons of a type. Single weapon batteries are illegal where you have more than 10 weapons of a type.

And Weapon 'types' are defined in the first "Weaponry" section (page 18)

Single turret batteries ARE NOT illegal.

If you have MORE THAN 10 mounts of a type, you MUST group them. We agree on this.

A BATTERY MAY BE AS FEW AS ONE TURRET, OR AS MANY AS TEN...

So a single turret battery IS allowed.

It DOES NOT SAY that you have to group them into groups of ten. IT SIMPLY SAYS YOU MUST GROUP THEM. How hard is that to understand?

And the example supports that EXACT thing, to the "T".

Except you say the example is wrong. But it is not. ::Cries::

How can we even have a basis for discussion if this simple concept eludes you? Please explain in depth why you think single turret batteries are illegal. Should be interesting.

 

[dean]

I found last night a very interesting read "Naval Ordnance 1937" from the US Navy. A very interesting read.
http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/NAVAL-ORDNANCE-1937.html (sections 903 & 919)

Aramis is partly correct.

A US Tech 5-8 (?) Wet Navy turret is a subset of mounts.

The primary components of a mount are

1. the slide,
2. the carrage and
3. the stand.

US naval turrets (1937) include these components, which are built into the structure of the turret. They also include the following Major Structural Subdivisions.

1. the turret proper
2. the turret foundation (equivalent to a hardpoint?)
3. the barbette (protecting the turret components from deck level to below decks. Stationary, does not rotate)
4. the revolving turret structure (within the barbette)

Where Aramis is correct, is that this entire assembly from turret proper to powder room and magazine below, is called in the US Navy in 1937, a "Turret Mount".

Where I am also correct, is that the "Turret Mount" includes the "Weapon Mount" components of the slide, carrage and stand. Without those three components, the weapon could not be mounted in the turret.

I will satisfy myself will only mentioning in passing my scepticism at using 19th & 20th century navy terminology and applying it to Traveller.

For example, I now have a 'new' meaning for 'Barbette' and it certainly cannot hold a particle accelerator!

This isn't the US Navy, nor wikipedia. Nor does this have any relevance to getting evidence from the text of the rules to support your argument. You can find none so you must turn to external sources. If the author included a reference list, I might work with you on that, but it does not.

 

[dean]

Good question. And that is just as relevent if you think "why didn't they just say 'turret'?"

Personally I don't have an answer to that one.

I do think it is compounded tho if you use mount = turret. You then have to also ask "why repeat in sentance 3, what you just said in sentance 1?"

Why repeat the phrase"die roll modifier" that you just said in sentence three about generating characters, if you said it in sentence one?

Because that's how it was written. a=b=c therefore a=c.

 

[dean]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Here is a proof for “weapon mount = a mount for a weapon”.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 1. Book 2 ships can only use individual weapons which may be mounted up to three in a turret.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 2. MM's requirements for Book 5 included that ships from Book 2 be compatable and legal in the Book 5 system.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 3. Book 5 specifically states “Book 2 must be considered to be a standard system for providing ships using off-the-shelf components” and “It is not superceded by any system given in this book...” (Book 5, page 18)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Proving Book 5 is intended to be capable of [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]a single turret mounting up to three same type weapons, as three independent batteries.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 4. Book 5 uses the Turret Weapons table, which uses individual weapons and grouped weapons to establish battery USP.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 5. Single weapon turrets, mixed turrets and small craft all use individual weapons as batteries.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Proving, there is means to create and clear examples of a single turret mounting up to three individual weapon batteries in Book 5, that are not in dispute.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 6. The “Turrets” section has no less than seven referances to weapons being mounted in turrets.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 7. The “Turrets Weapon” table has no less than five referances to weapons being mounted or contained in turrets.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 8. The “Turrets” section refers three times to turrets being “installed” or “emplaced”.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 9. The “Turrets” section does not use “mount” to describe attaching Turrets to hardpoints or ships.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Proving that the rules consider turret weapons to be mounted in Turrets. That the use of the phrase “mount” is used exclusively within the Turrets section to describe weapons being placed into Turrets. And that within the rules, turrets are not considered to be “mounted” onto ships (instead, installed or emplaced).[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 10. The Turret section, instructs that;[/FONT]
“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Turret Weapons table [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]indicates each [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]type of turret weapon[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] in column and the nine possible USP code ratings in rows. The number at the intersection is the number of[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] weapons of the type indicated r[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]equired to achieve the USP code rating.”[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Proving that the Turret section and the Turret Weapons table, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]both consider batteries to be composed of weapons, not turrets.[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Proving Batteries are formed of individual weapons. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fact 10. The opening paragraph of the Batteries Section discusses weapon mounts, that you may group them into batteries. More than 10 of a type and you must group them. Batteries may occupy from one to ten turrets. And that batteries of the same weapon type must have the same USP code.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A weapon mount = a mount for a weapon.[/FONT]

Except you consistently ignore that book 5 specifies that the smallest battery is A TURRET. So since this invalidates your entire argument, you ignore it.

AGAIN, I acknowledge that book five is intended to be backwards compatible to book 2, but the book 5 combat system does not allow for not battery fire combat. And book 5 specifically states that the smallest battery IS ONE TURRET. Except mixed weapons, ("in this case each weapon is a battery") which does NOT change that in all other cases a battery = turret.

Backwards compatibility does not allow you to use a book 2 design in the book 5 combat system. It allows you to use a book 5 design in the book 2 combat system. If ya wanna do that, knock yerself out with it. But it is NOT relevant to the fact that the smallest battery allowed (outside of mixed turrets in ships less than 1000 tons) is ONE turret, in book 5 designed ships.

 

[dean]

To quote you, The Turrets Weapons table allows for single weapons. Not in dispute are single weapons found in single turrets, mixed turrets & small craft.

A single weapon gets a battery USP.

The rest of that post is built on sand


OMG, you are not implying the authors got it wrong!

NO, I am not. I am implying YOU got it wrong.

A single weapon gets a battery rating IF it is in a SINGLE turret or if it is in a mixed turret.

ONCE AGAIN YOU TOTALLY IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE RULES EXPLICITLY STATE "A BATTERY MAY BE AS FEW AS ONE TURRETS, OR AS MANY AS TEN..."

They DO NOT state that a battery may be as few as one weapon... if it happens to be in a single turret then sure, that complies with my statement.

The mixed turret rule does, but it is indeed the exception, special, designated case that violates the rule, for ships.

 

[Matt123]

Hi Don,

An author will write a rule set based on certain assumptions. Hopefully he will outline these assumptions clearly or have reason to believe they are implicit in the gamers understanding of the game world.

If the wrong assumptions are used by the gamer, it will show in the disjointed rules, the 'exceptions' to the rules and when you look closer, the volume of corrections required to 'correct' the rules. The implication should be that the assumption needing the least errata, is most likely to be closest to the authors intent.

“A weapon mount” = “A mount for a weapon”, requires merely a clarification. The implicite understanding of the Traveller universe set out in Book 2 has been lost over time. I myself cast aside Book 2 shortly after purchasing the (IMHO) far better Book 5 (early '80s) and it is only with this debate starting 2 (plus?) years ago that I repurchased Book 2 from MM and rediscovered that Book 2 ships are deliberately legal in High Guard.

A weapon mount = a mount for a weapon

The only errata needed is to (obviously) clarify what a weapon mount is.

Differances to Mount = Turret are;

1. Up to 10 weapons of a type may be used as 10 batteries of one weapon.
   1. These 10 weapons can occupy as few as 4 turrets. Book 2 ships already do this and are legal in Book 5.
   2. The Turret Weapons table provides USP's for single weapon batteries.
   3. Undisputed are single turrets, mixed turrets, small craft weapons and Book 2 ships, proving a variety of things including that single weapon batteries are acceptable and a turret can hold up to three of them.
      
2. More than 10 weapons of a type must be grouped.
   1. In the example in the Batteries section, the 80 triple turrets with 240 weapons, MUST group them. All the examples 'optimal' batteries are valid.
   2. More than 10 weapons of a type MUST be grouped. Not much else to say.
      

And that is pretty much it. All existing ships are still legal. Dean hasn't given any examples where they are not (aside from misreading that "mounts of a type MUST be grouped").

The 'mixed turret rule' Dean (& others) rely on as an exception, to 'interprete' thier meaning is there to stop players from composing large batteries from mixed turrets and then argueing on how damage is applied. "Each weapon is battery" merely (& effectively) prevents multiple mixed turrets grouping weapons to form batteries.

Regardless, it is un-disputed that the mixed turret rule (& Book 2) does show that a turret is intended to be able to cope with up to three batteries. However it is NOT an exception. It is a norm carried forward from Book 2 and stated in the opening part of the Batteries section.

--//--

To answer some of Aramises concerns.

• creates an overlap zone (the 400-999Td range) in the must organize rule and mixed turret rule

Not sure where you are coming from Aramis. All I can say is that "mounts of a type" obviously excludes mixed types. The 'mixed turret rule' is not relevent.

I'll restate that. It is important and if Aramis is confused, others will be to;
The 'mixed turret rule' is only relevent where you have "weapons of differant types in the same turret." (direct quote from the rules)
Where the turret is not mixed, the mixed turret rule does not apply.

There is no 'overlap zone'. Unless Aramis can elaborate further.

• A number of mixed turret designs now must arrange batteries

Why? The mixed turret rule states each "weapon is a battery". I don't see how that is affected. Please elaborate.

• does not solve any extant problems

A Book 5 Beowolf should be able to have the same weaponry as a Book 2 Beowolf holding 6 missiles in 6 batteries. The Imperial Navy should also be able to replicate a Beowolfs armament. And the Megacorp Weapon suppliers most certainly will be offering the military those options in more than mixed turrets.

Is it not odd, dare I say a 'problem', that you can have in a turret 2 missile, 1 sand as three batteries. But not 3 missiles as 3 batteries...

• is a minority opinion

Your poll so far shows 33% of respondents follow my line of thinking.

• is inconsistent with previous rulings on the matter (in T20)

A different rules set, different authors and several decades later than CT. And on top of that, this suggests T20 should be more of an influence than Book 2.

• is inconsistent with real-world naval use of the term

Already posted on this. Real world US Navy use of the term, makes "Turret Mounts" a subset of "Mounts". Additionally the US Navy turrets include the primary components of US Navy weapon mounts (slide, carrage & stand). Furthermore, each Big Gun in a US Navy turret has its own set of mounts.

I'll post shortly on Mount = Turret.

 

[aramis]

CLosed to to uncivil behavior in last few posts.

Repeating the same, already refuted, argument in larger type is the internet equivalent of shouting.

The use of All Caps text also amounts to shouting.