Thread Necromany - Batteries and Turrets
On another forum, this topic came up and I supported the side of one turret = one battery. This post was a reply to the OPs assertions and response to my first reply. I spent some time on it so I thought I would stir the pot and share it here. I refer to the poster as "You", as to protect the innocent
Clarifications and deletions to come in under the character limit have been made.
< snip >
You said:
I'm quite used to this debate. In this case the Fighter "mounts" a turret, or does it? How does it cope when there is no turret and you want three independent weapons?
First of all, the ONLY way a fighter can "cope" when you want three independent weapons is by using the "mixed turret" rule, and in this case it does explicitly state that each weapon is treated as its own battery. And I will again point out that the Book 5 rules explicitly state that for purposes of ALL computations, to consider that the craft has a turret, even though it actually does not.
You said:
But first you miss the all important first sentance in the WEAPONRY Batteries section. This is often done because "it makes no sense". So the second or third sentance is quoted as "the rule" as its easier to understand. However the first two sentances introduce the important concept of how weapon mounts are to be treated (and it was considered important by the authors that they be treated first and seperately to turrets).
I did not miss the first sentence. In any paragraph, the first sentence is intended to INTRODUCE a topic. As a sentence, it makes perfect sense to me (note I did not mention it and say that it made "no sense", I believe you are assuming that of me). As the introductory sentence, it is not intended to be the final word on the topic. Indeed, you must read all SIX sentences together as a group to really get the full meaning of the paragraph entitled "Batteries", which you refer to above as "WEAPONRY".
So, lets break it down; as I read it only that first paragraph starting with "Batteries:" is relevant to this discussion, and if we read it as written rather than making assumptions of our own the meaning becomes clear.
The first sentence introduces the topic of batteries. It states:
"Ships with more than one weapon mount of a type may group them into batteries."
Analysis: First off, we all have to admit that no where else in the rules does it EXPLICITLY define or explain what a "weapon mount" is. I think we all can agree that; "..more than one.. type" means, for example, a ship mounting some beams plus some missiles, or fusion guns plus sand-casters, etc. I also think we can concur that we all agree that "may group them into batteries" is a general statement of intent about the idea that somehow, which is NOT explained in this particular sentence, those "weapon mounts" are grouped into batteries. That's all that sentence says. It in NO way attempts to define "weapon mount".
The second sentence:
"Ships with more than ten mounts of the same type must group them into batteries."
Analysis: We all know what ships are. Since we still DO NOT have a definition of what a "mount" is then we have to take the statement "more than ten mounts" with a grain of salt. Does it mean ten beam lasers arranged in 3.33 triple turrets?? Does it mean ten fusion guns arranged in 5 turrets? Or does it mean thirty sand casters in ten triple turrets? We still do not know, because we still LACK A DEFINITION of what a weapon mount is. ANYTHING that you might think to this point about weapon mounts is an "assumption" YOU are bringing to the sentence. Next, "...Must group them into batteries"; this is a more clarification of the previous sentence. It says in sentence one "may group", and here we find "must group" into batteries. So, we have gone from introducing the general idea about batteries, when they "may" apply, to more specific wording about when the concept "must" apply.
That's all that sentence says. This sentence does NOT define weapon mounts, either.
Sentence three:
"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)."
Analysis: So, as we have observed, the paragraph is proceeding, as any well-written paragraph should, from the general, to the more-specific. This sentence starts "A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten,"; note that the WORDING is SPECIFIC.
LOGIC TEST: Since
weapon mounts may/must(in defined cases) be placed in
batteries, and (one to ten) TURRETS are considered a
battery, ERGO TURRETS are in fact
weapon mounts - no mention of any individual weapons here. Pure logic tells you turrets ARE weapon mounts.
A battery may be "as few as", NOT "less than", not "fractions of" - it specifically SAYS "TURRET". Thus we aren't "ASSUMING" anything - and, if read in conjunction with the prior two sentences, therefore is the
FIRST definition of "weapon mount".
The remainder of the sentence is about USP and not relevant to the "mounts" discussion.
[However, as an aside, I would challenge you to find any example of an "official" CT ship where fractional turrets are used in ANY battery's USP factor calculation (with the known exception of a mixed turret). I suspect you will not; and by a quick back-of -the-envelope calculation I can see instances where ships would actually "waste" individual weapons because the count is somewhere between the upper value of one USP factor and the lower value of another. Of course, a good designer avoids this. : ) ]
So, we continue to go from general to specific. The first sentence tells about batteries and when they "may" be used. The second sentence narrows down when they "must" be used. In neither case is there a definition of the concept of "weapon mount". This third sentence EXPLICITLY states HOW to define a battery, and that the definition is One to Ten turrets. Not one to ten weapons. One to Ten TURRETS.
Sentence four:
"Each bay weapon is automatically a battery."
Analysis: Pretty clear. I'll note that this sentence continues to be specific in clarifying what a battery is. The third sentence says it's 1-10 turrets, this sentence goes on to talk about BAYS; to say this continues to define what a weapon mount is (again, since “weapon mounts” may/must be organized into batteries and this says each bay is a battery, ergo
BAYS, like turrets, are weapon mounts. Simple logic, and not subject to any interpretation. This is the
SECOND definition of a "weapon mount".
Sentence five:
"The spinal mount of a ship (if it has one) is a single battery."
Analysis: Also, pretty clear, and also continues to define what a weapon mount is vis-a-vis the requirement that this IS a battery, so therefore the spinal mount is also a weapon mount. This is the
THIRD definition of what is a weapon mount.
Sentence six:
"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."
And this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. And I will note that this sentence, being the final one in the paragraph, notes a SPECIFIC exception case about individual weapons.
The leading part about 1000 ton ships is crystal; the next section introduces the concept of mixed turrets, and then proceeds to parenthetically define what they are, which is again completely clear. The last part notes that this exception is allowed (on ships <1000 tons), and noting that in this EXCEPTION CASE,
EACH WEAPON is a
battery. Note that we have gone from discussing WEAPON MOUNTS (sentence 3, turrets; sentence 4, bays; sentence 5, spinal mounts) to stating that each WEAPON itself is a battery, in this case only.
You said:
The three sentances (& much of the weapons section) only make sense as a whole if you consider weapon, weapon mount and mount are interchangable.
Sorry, I just explained why this view is FALSE; it's the EASIER way to make sense of it, if you stop reading at sentence three, but it also discounts the ideas presented in the last three sentences.
You said:
I read "...the equivalent of one turret. In actuality, the mountings are probably rigid, and no actual turret is present."
The rest depends on what you consider a weapon mount. If no turret is present, is the Fighter the weapon mount? IMHO no. The Fighter mounts up to three weapons, each requiring a weapon mount.
It does say "the equivalent"; this is once again an example of the writer going from the general to the specific. It does then go on to SPECIFICALLY state that you need to treat Small Craft Weapons just as they are in a turret for purposes of ALL COMPUTATIONS. This would include by necessity how they are grouped into batteries. Of course, if you misinterpret how batteries are calculated, then sure, you can make this read the same way. And YES, the fighter IS indeed the weapon mount.
You said:
Under the "current" interpretation we now have 2 beam, 1 missile, which must all operate independently in a triple turret.
But we cannot have 2 beam in a dual turret operating independently...
(swap 2 beam for 2 Fusion and we are back to my OP.)
It's not "INTERPRETATION". Under the explicitly stated "mixed turret" rules, YES, they are independent. And, EXPLICITLY stated in sentence three, a battery can be "as few as one"; once again, NOT less than one, as few as one, TURRET. Or one bay. Or one spinal mount. Or individual weapons in mixed turrets on craft <1000 tons. These things are EXPLICITLY stated in the rules and there's no amount of "interpretation" that can change the meaning of the words as they are printed.
o:
