CT Errata Compendium

[dean]

This was clarified in the errata previously:

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).

So the smallest possible battery would be a single weapon in a single weapon turret organized as a battery, OR a single fixed weapon (as per the rules from AM6 Solomani) organized as a battery by itself.

The clarification DELIBERATELY did not use the word mount in it.

Thank you Don.

So is it safe to say the entire reason the original author(s) left in the allowance to say that weapons may be left un-grouped from batteries was to allow backwards compatibility to Book 2?

I see matt's question inserted there between my post here and the reply I typed (and am now editing).

So, under Book 5 would this Cruiser SM have to organize it's batteries into at least turret sized units (smallest battery would be 1 triple turret, for 10 factor 3 batteries)?

Many thanks for pointing this clarification out to me. Hope you had a joyous Easter.

 

[DonM]

Thank you Don.

So is it safe to say the entire reason the original author(s) left in the allowance to say that weapons may be left un-grouped from batteries was to allow backwards compatibility to Book 2?

I see matt's question inserted there between my post here and the reply I typed (and am now editing).

So, under Book 5 would this Cruiser SM have to organize it's batteries into at least turret sized units (smallest battery would be 1 triple turret, for 10 factor 3 batteries)?

Many thanks for pointing this clarification out to me. Hope you had a joyous Easter.

That seems correct. I do not see anywhere that organizing the weapons into 30 factor-1 batteries would be legal (and if it were, it would definitely be suboptimal).

Now, IF the 10 triple turrets had 2 lasers and a missile rack, then you could have 20 factor-1 laser batteries and 10 factor-1 missile racks (before TL effects), and that would be legal. But if all of the weapons in a triple turret are identical, dividing the 3 weapons into separate batteries is not legal.

 

[Matt123]

Hmm, I'm behind the posting 8 ball again. A few minutes makes all the differance. lol.

This was clarified in the errata previously:

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).

The existing errata merely restates what is already there.

All ships must organise thier weapons into batteries. Yes, already acknowledged & assumed in the rules. In order to get a battery USP, batteries are formed of from 1 to 30 weapons.

The remainder is a wordier rephrase of the mixed turret rule, which already states in relation to mixed turrets "each weapon is a battery", effectively preventing the abuse the errata is concerned about (ie: batteries formed of mixed turrets).

However it doesn't address whether the first two sentances of the Batteries section, are refering to weapons or turrets.

• If refering to weapons, it considers a weapon to be the minimum battery size (as Book 2 does) and allows a turret to have three weapons of the same type as three batteries (which is NOT a mixed turret and is the norm for book 2 ships). The 'mixed turret rule' merely demonstrates that under Book 5, a single turret clearly has the ability to operate multiple batteries.
• If refering to turrets, it considers turrets to be the minimum battery size, but throws up the problem that more than 10 turrets 'of a type' must be grouped. More than 10 turrets 'of a type' and you cannot have single turret batteries. The 'mixed turret rule' is interpreted (by Dean et al) as an exception to the rule that proves the rule.

If Don you are leaning toward Mount = Turret, we now need the issue of what is a turret 'type' cleared up.

Dean pointing to a sentance which in effect states a battery may be of 1 to 10 turrets does not over-rule the phrase "more than ten [turrets] of the same type must be grouped".

 

[dean]

... SNIP
All ships must organise thier weapons into batteries. Yes, already acknowledged & assumed in the rules. In order to get a battery USP, batteries are formed of from 1 to 30 weapons.

Matt this is where you get it wrong, friend. A battery is NOT 1 to 30 weapons.
A battery is from 1 single turret to 10 triple turrets. Looks the same, but is not functionally the same.

The remainder is a wordier rephrase of the mixed turret rule, which already states in relation to mixed turrets "each weapon is a battery", effectively preventing the abuse the errata is concerned about (ie: batteries formed of mixed turrets).

However it doesn't address whether the first two sentances of the Batteries section, are refering to weapons or turrets.

• If refering to weapons, it considers a weapon to be the minimum battery size (as Book 2 does) and allows a turret to have three weapons of the same type as three batteries (which is NOT a mixed turret and is the norm for book 2 ships). The 'mixed turret rule' merely demonstrates that under Book 5, a single turret clearly has the ability to operate multiple batteries.
• If refering to turrets, it considers turrets to be the minimum battery size, but throws up the problem that more than 10 turrets 'of a type' must be grouped. More than 10 turrets 'of a type' and you cannot have single turret batteries. The 'mixed turret rule' is interpreted (by Dean et al) as an exception to the rule that proves the rule.

First of all, Matt, you are again confusing that you must group "more than 10 weapons of a type" with the fact that a battery CAN be from 1 to 10 turrets.
Whether you think '"mount=weapon" or "mount=turret" you are making a factual error there.

There is NOTHING in there that says you must group more than 10 weapons of a type into groups of 10.

It says if you have 11+ weapons, you gotta group them. AND, if you group them, they GOTTA be in turret sized amounts. And the Smallest turret sized amount is 1- single turret. And that the MOST you can group them into is ten triple turrets, AKA a 30 weapon battery.

OK, so to lend a little illustration to what I think Matt is saying, under his "Weapon = mount" idea, THIS is how it would work:

So if you have as few as 11 lasers in as few as 4 (triple) turrets, then he thinks that the rules are telling him he must group these 10 lasers in a battery. But because that 11th laser in in a triple turret he thinks that somehow it matters that now he has to group these 11+ lasers into a battery (because he thinks "mount=weapon").

I say, OK, then group them. But Matt, that just means that your smallest battery is still ONE turret, and since (in this hypothetical case) you have 4 of them, you can do EITHER 4 - 1 turret batteries, 2 - 2 turret batteries, or 1 - 4 turret batteries. Because the rules state they must have the same USP, all the turrets have to be full, so you actually have 12 lasers in total, 3 in each, to be legal.

But all this line of reasoning does for you Matt is force you to group your batteries before you wound "need" to do so under "turret=mount", SO now your largest ship possible for use in Book 2 is 400 tons, in this kind of case.

And we all I think share the understanding that the intent is to allow ships up to 1000 tons to be backwards compatible, so this is not consistent with that idea.

If Don you are leaning toward Mount = Turret, we now need the issue of what is a turret 'type' cleared up.

Dean pointing to a sentance which in effect states a battery may be of 1 to 10 turrets does not over-rule the phrase "more than ten [turrets] of the same type must be grouped".

No it doesn't. But neither does that sentence LIMIT the grouping to groups of 10, as you seem to think. IF I have 11 identical turrets I can group them any way I want SO LONG AS each group has the same USP, and there are between 1 and 10 turrets in each battery group.

What is true is that prime numbers like 11 will force you to make 11 single turret batteries (because it is not divisible).

12 turrets could be 12 batteries, 6 batteries, 4 batteries, or 3 batteries, or 2 batteries (edit). All of these are between 1 turret and 10 turrets in size, so are legal.

Which is why the example talks about "Optimal" configurations, because some groupings "waste" your firepower in those dead spots between the USP codes reflected on the turret weapons table.

 

[pendragonman]

...Snip

What is true is that prime numbers like 11 will force you to make 11 single turret batteries (because it is not divisible).

12 turrets could be 12 batteries, 6 batteries, 4 batteries, or 3 batteries. All of these are between 1 turret and 10 turrets in size, so are legal.

12 turrets could also be 12 batteries of one turret each. Equally correct.

Not to confuse things, but those same twelve turrets would have to be homogeneous (all weapons in each turret would have to be the same) as a ship with 12 turrets is clearly bigger than what the mixed turret rule/exception allows.

Lastly, an errata thread is not the place to try to incite an argument, especially one that was stopped in another thread do to rancor.

 

[dean]

12 turrets could also be 12 batteries of one turret each. Equally correct.

Not to confuse things, but those same twelve turrets would have to be homogeneous (all weapons in each turret would have to be the same) as a ship with 12 turrets is clearly bigger than what the mixed turret rule/exception allows.

Lastly, an errata thread is not the place to try to incite an argument, especially one that was stopped in another thread do to rancor.

Well, since Don has answered the errata question sufficiently for my satisfaction, I suppose I will consider it to be my last post on the topic.

We have no rancor; perhaps it is perceived by some as such, but it is not.
But thanks for the advice.

 

[Matt123]

It says if you have 11+ weapons, you gotta group them.

Sentance 2.

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

Are you now agreeing that mount = weapon?

 

[Matt123]

Lastly, an errata thread is not the place to try to incite an argument, especially one that was stopped in another thread do to rancor.

Like Dean, I didn't feel there was any rancor. Passion yes, rancor & un-civil behavior no.

What we had was a process, contained in a specific thread, guided by Don, cut short by Aramis.

I've returned here to answer your post in another thread.

It causes this rancor because (from my point of view) you refuse to see any merit to anyone else's point of view.

According the poll set up by Aramis, at the time of posting here, your point of view is shared by just over 60% of respondents. And I respectfully suggest you are 'obviously' not seeing the merits of the view I am championing, supported by 29% of respondents. (That is 11 of 38 respondents, with 4 more unsure or preferring a third interpretation.)

'Obviously' I am not alone in the interpretation I am championing, however I happily accept I am the most vocal.

Regardless I apologise for the rancor you feel has been placed on your view.

 

[aramis]

Sentance 2.
Are you now agreeing that mount = weapon?

No, He isn't.

Quit trying to twist people's words into your meanings.

 

[Matt123]

First of all, Matt, you are again confusing that you must group "more than 10 weapons of a type" with the fact that a battery CAN be from 1 to 10 turrets.
Whether you think '"mount=weapon" or "mount=turret" you are making a factual error there.

There is NOTHING in there that says you must group more than 10 weapons of a type into groups of 10.

It says if you have 11+ weapons, you gotta group them. AND, if you group them, they GOTTA be in turret sized amounts. And the Smallest turret sized amount is 1- single turret. And that the MOST you can group them into is ten triple turrets, AKA a 30 weapon battery.

Aramis, here is the entire quote (use of bold changed). I chose not to respond to the rest because this section contains two errors that Dean relies on for the rest of his post. The first one, his misreading of my post (the problem with skim-reading is that you occasionally mis-interprete) and interpreting it as me claiming weapons or turrets must be in groups of 10. However I did not interprete it as 'twisting my words', I consider thats a little derogatory towards the writer. Merely that Dean skim reads and I don't. Regardless I chose to ignore his first error.

The one I chose to respond too was his second 'error' (from Deans perspective). There was no need to twist his words (nor any desire to). Dean gave them to me. And yes I know its contrary to his position. Thats what made it worth responding to...

Sentance 2, states;

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

Nowhere else is there an imperitive ("must") to groups mounts and the only way to come to Dean's statement

It says if you have 11+ weapons, you gotta group them.

is for Dean to interprete sentance 2 as mounts = weapons;

Ships with more than ten [weapons] of the same type must group them into batteries.

Ergo Dean was argueing both for and against mount = weapon, in the same post. Which I confess I found amusing. Sorry Dean.

Just to be clear, when mount = turret, sentance 2 states

Ships with more than ten [turrets] of the same type must group them into batteries.

And I am still keen to hear how that is reconciled against the example in the Batteries section. I have already rejected the arguement relying on sentance 3. (a battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten...).

 

[aramis]

Just to be clear, when mount = turret, sentance 2 states
And I am still keen to hear how that is reconciled against the example in the Batteries section. I have already rejected the arguement relying on sentance 3. (a battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten...).

Then you've already rejected the actual blackletter rules.

 

[dean]

Then you've already rejected the actual blackletter rules.

Yes, he has. As have others of his opinion.

No point in trying to reason with a person who can't see that.

I've done all the typing I can on the topic.

Unless and until MWM or Don M. make a definitive ruling, there are people out there who will, IMO, willfully misinterpret the rules, either by failing to read them as a unified whole (in which case the system works), or by choosing to ignore relevant parts without being able to lucidly defend their position with references from within the text.

 

[dean]

Aramis, here is the entire quote (use of bold changed). I chose not to respond to the rest because this section contains two errors that Dean relies on for the rest of his post. The first one, his misreading of my post (the problem with skim-reading is that you occasionally mis-interprete) and interpreting it as me claiming weapons or turrets must be in groups of 10. However I did not interprete it as 'twisting my words', I consider thats a little derogatory towards the writer. Merely that Dean skim reads and I don't. Regardless I chose to ignore his first error.

The one I chose to respond too was his second 'error' (from Deans perspective). There was no need to twist his words (nor any desire to). Dean gave them to me. And yes I know its contrary to his position. Thats what made it worth responding to...

Sentance 2, states;
Nowhere else is there an imperitive ("must") to groups mounts and the only way to come to Dean's statement
is for Dean to interprete sentance 2 as mounts = weapons;
Ergo Dean was argueing both for and against mount = weapon, in the same post. Which I confess I found amusing. Sorry Dean.

Just to be clear, when mount = turret, sentance 2 states
And I am still keen to hear how that is reconciled against the example in the Batteries section. I have already rejected the arguement relying on sentance 3. (a battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten...).

I do not "skim read".

And you continuously fail to address my direct points. So, since you will not actually participate in discussion, there's naught else left to discuss.

You are misreading the rules. You don't think you are. I cannot change that for all the words in the world.

 

[DonM]

Thread locked for cool down.

 

[DonM]

Thread reopened for errata business.

Don't post about the HG battery issue. I'll have a revised clarification shortly in a separate thread.

 

[E.D.Quibell]

Alien Module 3 Vargr, page 29 colum labled "ASLAN MORALE" should be "VARGR MORALE".

Just so it's not missed.

Best regards,

Ewan

 

[Swiftbrook]

Errata:

The Darrian Navy maintains two or three squadrons of tech level 16 warships of pre-Maghiz manufacture. These ships 16 warships were recovered from a stockpile of ships in the outer Darrian system in 390; they have been in service since.

Suggest: "These TL 16 warships were recovered from ..."

I don't think we want to limit our creativity to only 16 ships. It's definitely seems like a typo since we are talking about TL 16.

-Swiftbrook

 

[AndreaV]

Errata: High Guard Medical Crew

According to the consolidated errata under HG2 medical crew = 1/240 crew. This doesn't take any account of passengers

Suggested alteration. 1 per 240 crew and middle passengers, plus 1 per 120 high passengers, plus 1 per 480 low passengers or frozen watch.

 

[far-trader]

Errata: High Guard Medical Crew

According to the consolidated errata under HG2 medical crew = 1/240 crew. This doesn't take any account of passengers

Suggested alteration. 1 per 240 crew and middle passengers, plus 1 per 120 high passengers, plus 1 per 480 low passengers or frozen watch.

I would wonder why? I know there are precedents but...

It's not like high passengers are going to be more often sick or injured while aboard. And they aren't likely to be anticipating having that complicated elective surgery while aboard a starship, they'll be headed to or from the best planetside medical facility they can afford for that. Barring the possible hospital ship scenarios I think a simple ratio is sufficient.

Nor will low passengers need fewer, except that they are in need of none while in the low berths. I could see arguing for not counting them at all. Using the Classic survival roll they don't need any medic except to improve survival. One might argue they need more attention in that case but again I prefer the simpler general rate.

 

[aramis]

For comparison, In Re HG Medical crew, MT counts HP and MP passengers in its 1/120 Total Crew, and 1/20 LP...