Mixed Turrets/Batteries in HG

[Matt123]

If I were the GM and my player came to me with the design you're asking about, a fighter with a triple turret containing three lasers each of which is a single battery, I tell them that they'd need an extra gunner. The Pilot would fire Laser #1, Gunner A would fire Laser #2, and Gunner B would fire Laser #3.

I think that's legal, it's what I'd require in my game. It's just that your design is so odd and exists in a the gray area between LLB;2 and HG2 that I'm not sure.

'Matt' is fine.

I'll point you to bk5, pg34 Small Craft 'Weapons' & 'Crew', where its set out pretty clearly for small craft. The bit requiring use of Bk2 is for 'Starships' or probably more correctly 'Big Craft', being buried well within the 'Big Craft/Starships' design sequence.

 

[rancke]

Well, my 2c is that a lot of stuff in HG is abstracted & it's quite plausible that our mixed turret is three independent movable, targeting weapon mounts all mounted on a single hardpoint.

Well, if you think it's plausible that a turret could actually be three independent movable, targeting weapon mounts all mounted on a single hardpoint, and if your GM also thinks it's plausible, you're all set.


Hans

 

[Jeffr0]

Well, if you think it's plausible that a turret could actually be three independent movable, targeting weapon mounts all mounted on a single hardpoint, and if your GM also thinks it's plausible, you're all set.

The triple turret is traditional CT weirdness all the way.

Missiles don't really need to steal much time away from the lasers-- surely they could fire during moments with the laser is cooling off or something. Sand is only fired/maneuvered when certain sensors are going off. Again, the traversing issue is only a problem for very brief periods of time... but given the amount of time in a game turn, there's plenty of room for this to pass the common sense test.

Now three laser batteries is another story. Going just by not-so-common common sense, requiring three gunners is crazy-- while breaking the single turret into three separate batteries is just plain LAME. But if you think like CAR WARS or SFB... having them separate means that the lasers fire together in a sort of random pattern... just like "three linked MG's on a car" or "4 photons on a starship". The combined 3-laser battery is sorta like SFB's narrow salvoes rule. So if you look at it THAT way, then it is not so lame. Though the fact that we are arguing about this makes if fundamentally annoying by default.

So the three-lasers-three-batteries-one-turret thing... it goes back to the INTENT of the rules in HG2... specifically whatever they intended for gunner seating and what one person could conceivable handle.

 

[far-trader]

I thought the whole thing is rather plainly and clearly explained (as opposed to some rules that are fuzzy).

"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."

I don't know how to put it any plainer than that, except by using the BBS (Bold Beat Stick ) code as I did above.

So the 3 lasers in one turret is not a mixed turret since the weapons are not different. It is a single battery of 3 lasers, factor 3 at TL7.

Likewise the 2 fusion guns in one turret is not a mixed turret since the weapons are not different. It is a single battery of 2 fusion guns, factor 4 at TL12.

It really is that simple.

On the core issue of our TL15 fighters with 2#5 fusion guns we appear to have agreement by all parties that yes it is legal (myself & Bill) or 'I would allow it' (tbeard's first post).

It should be obvious I'm not in agreement I also believe the above shows that it is incorrect. Your TL15 fighter with 2 fusion guns is only a single battery of factor 5. In other words you're wasting 2 EP and MCr2 since you get the same effect with just 1 fusion gun.

Now, that's not to say I wouldn't allow it in MTU, just that the rules in HG are clearly not in support of it. And as far as MTU would go I'd probably make it a fixed mount to allow it.

 

[Jeffr0]

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.

Wow, yeah.

A strict reading of the battery rules clears this issue right up for a by-the-book game-- though, I have to admit... the bold beat stick of death is required here.

 

[rancke]

I thought the whole thing is rather plainly and clearly explained (as opposed to some rules that are fuzzy).

"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."

I don't know how to put it any plainer than that, except by using the BBS (Bold Beat Stick ) code as I did above.

So the 3 lasers in one turret is not a mixed turret since the weapons are not different. It is a single battery of 3 lasers, factor 3 at TL7.

Likewise the 2 fusion guns in one turret is not a mixed turret since the weapons are not different. It is a single battery of 2 fusion guns, factor 4 at TL12.

It really is that simple.

That's fine as far as it goes, but it's not as clear-cut as you seem to think.

* Is laser/missile/sand the only legal mix, or can you have two lasers and one missile, or two missiles and a sand, etc.?

* Do you need extra gunners to fire the two extra batteries in a mixed turret?

* If you can fire a missile and a sand canister in between fireing the laser, why can't you fire the two other missile launchers in a triple missile turret "in between" each other? In other words, why can't a triple missile turret be three different batteries? (Note that i'm not asking this question of triple laser turrets).

* If you can have two lasers and a missile launcher (or a sandcaster), can the two lasers be seperate batteries?


Hans

 

[tbeard1999]

You appear to have interpreted 'mounts' & 'turrets' to be the same thing. Each weapon requires a mount and turrets can hold up to three.

I do not see that anywhere in HG.

Ergo mounts and turrets are not one and the same.

I disagree. To me these sentence pretty clearly implies that they are are same:

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

Seems clear to me that we are talking about turrets, not individual weapons.

The following sentence appears to restate and expand that rule:

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).

 

[tbeard1999]

IIt should be obvious I'm not in agreement I also believe the above shows that it is incorrect. Your TL15 fighter with 2 fusion guns is only a single battery of factor 5. In other words you're wasting 2 EP and MCr2 since you get the same effect with just 1 fusion gun.

Now, that's not to say I wouldn't allow it in MTU, just that the rules in HG are clearly not in support of it. And as far as MTU would go I'd probably make it a fixed mount to allow it.

Agreed on all points, though I'd probably require a second gunner for the second fusion gun if it is treated as a second battery.

 

[Whipsnade]

I thought the whole thing is rather plainly and clearly explained (as opposed to some rules that are fuzzy).(big snip of a lovely explanation)

Dan,

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Did that ever solve a lot of problems!

Sorry, Matt, your design is illegal.


Regards and phewwwwwwww,
Bill

 

[far-trader]

That's fine as far as it goes, but it's not as clear-cut as you seem to think.

It still seems so to me

* Is laser/missile/sand the only legal mix, or can you have two lasers and one missile, or two missiles and a sand, etc.?

You can also have laser/missile, laser/sand, missile/sand. You cannot have two of any one type, that breaks the different types in one turret bit. So no, you can't have two lasers and one missile, nor two missiles and one sand.

* Do you need extra gunners to fire the two extra batteries in a mixed turret?

Granted this bit is a little muddier. But it's not the key part about what constitutes a legal turret under the rules. In High Guard this bit (crewing weapons) depends on the type of craft (small craft, small ship, or large ship).

On a small craft (ships under 100tons) you need one gunner for each weapon beyond the first (which the pilot fires) and no gunner is needed for the sand. So a small craft needs at most 2 crew (pilot and gunner) with a triple mount turret. A double mount turret may need 1 or 2 crew. A single mount turret only needs 1 crew (the pilot).

On small ships (ships 100 to 1000tons), LBB2 crewing applies, so each turret requires a crew of 1, regardless of the weapon mix. Subject only to the possible option of instead declaring grouped turrets as batteries and then only needing a crew of 1 per battery (which may still be 1 per turret). But that is not clear as allowed.

On large ships (ships over 1000tons), LBB5 crewing applies (and mixed turrets are not allowed), so each battery requires a crew of 1, and turrets may not be mixed, and all batteries must be of the same factor.

* If you can fire a missile and a sand canister in between firing the laser, why can't you fire the two other missile launchers in a triple missile turret "in between" each other? In other words, why can't a triple missile turret be three different batteries? (Note that i'm not asking this question of triple laser turrets).

While I see no problem with firing and guiding a missile from the same turret, in the same turn, as you're firing away with a laser, and popping a sand cannister, my interpretation of why you can't (in HG) fire two or three missiles at separate targets in the same turn from the same turret is because the turret can only track and guide the missiles towards one target in a turn.

That breaks (a little) with LBB2 and the Multi-Target program rule, but we're not talking about LBB2. We both know how incompatible the two books really are despite LBB5 saying mixing is fine. The Multi-Target program rule from LBB2 is (presumably) abstracted into the LBB5 rules, in that it doesn't specifically say (but certainly implies by the computer table) that programs are needed at all but does allow targeting multiple enemy ships in a turn, by different batteries.

* If you can have two lasers and a missile launcher (or a sandcaster), can the two lasers be separate batteries?

As noted above I don't think the rules are unclear about not allowing two of any same weapon in one turret to be separate batteries.

One thing I might see being allowed is treating such as a primary and backup setup, so you are still within the rules of not having multiple same (active) weapons in a mixed turret.

For example, the TL15 fighter with two fusion guns idea: It would be a single battery factor 5 fusion gun, and if the battery/double turret were hit (destroying the single primary weapon) you have a second identical battery (single backup weapon) in that turret that can take over and still be a single battery factor 5 fusion gun. Until it is subsequently hit of course. At least this way such a design is not wasting the MCr2 and in fact needs only 2EP which is imo better overall.

 

[Whipsnade]

As noted above I don't think the rules are unclear about not allowing two of any same weapon in one turret to be separate batteries.

Dan,

And that's the operative phrase here, isn't it?

Yo can have multiple weapons of the same type in a turret, up to three lasers, up to three missiles, up to three sandcasters, and up to two plasma/fusion guns. What you can't have is weapons of the same type in the same turret act as separate batteries.

So, using Hans' example of a triple turret with two lasers and one sandcaster, that turret would then have two batteries; one battery consisting of two lasers and one battery consisting of one sandcaster.

The question now shifts to manning requirements, where things may get a little fuzzy. Consider the following:

- Mixed turrets are allowed on ships at or below 1000dTons
- Ships at or below 1000dTons use LBB:2 manning even when built with LBB:5
- LBB:2 requires one gunner per turret
- LBB:5 requires one gunner per battery

Here's the 64 CrImp question. Imagine a 1000dTon vessel similar to Matt's design. It has ten triple turrets and each turret contains two lasers and one sandcaster. While HG2 allows the weapons in those mixed turrets to be grouped into batteries within the turret, does HG2 allow those weapons to be grouped into batteries containing weapons from other turrets?

Would you have to have 10 laser batteries each of two weapons and 10 sandcaster batteries each of one weapon, or could you have one laser battery of 20 weapons and one sandcaster battery of 10 weapons?

As a GM, I'd say the former, you have 10 batteries of lasers and 10 batteries of sandcasters, and "pin" explanation on the timing and aiming issues already raised.

Here's the kicker. I'd still require additional gunners for the additional batteries because HG2 requires them. In a sub-100dTon craft, the pilot can fire a battery leaving the gunner to handle one other. In a sub-1000dTon vessel, the pilot is no longer part of the picture. The sole gunner in the turret would fire one of the batteries in that turret and a gunner or gunners elsewhere would be needed for the others.

Stretching this example to the extreme, and absurd, a 1000dTon ship wth ten triple turrets each holding a laser, missile, and sandcaster would have ten laser batteries, ten missile batteries, and ten sandcaster batteries requiring thirty gunners or which ten would sit in the turrets.


Regards,
Bill

P.S. It seems I'm back to using the bold beat stick, doesn't it?

P.P.S. I should just have Reason For Editing: Spelling as my permanent postscript.

 

[Jeffr0]

* If you can have two lasers and a missile launcher (or a sandcaster), can the two lasers be separate batteries?

As noted above I don't think the rules are unclear about not allowing two of any same weapon in one turret to be separate batteries.

I think this is something that will have to be repeated many times. Thanks for continuing to point this out.

 

[rancke]

* Is laser/missile/sand the only legal mix, or can you have two lasers and one missile, or two missiles and a sand, etc.?

You can also have laser/missile, laser/sand, missile/sand. You cannot have two of any one type, that breaks the different types in one turret bit. So no, you can't have two lasers and one missile, nor two missiles and one sand.

Two lasers and one sandcaster constitute different weapons. Nothing in the rules says all three have to be different. Or am I wrong?

I'm quite on board with Bill's suggestion that two identical weapons in the same turret cannot belong to different batteries (Well, not beam weapons anyway).

While I see no problem with firing and guiding a missile from the same turret, in the same turn, as you're firing away with a laser, and popping a sand cannister, my interpretation of why you can't (in HG) fire two or three missiles at separate targets in the same turn from the same turret is because the turret can only track and guide the missiles towards one target in a turn.

So the turret is capable of guiding a laser to hit one target and a missile to hit another, but it can't guide two missiles to hit different targets? And why is that? Is it a basic physical law (similar to the one that keeps lasers mounted in the same turret from shooting in different directions), or is it because turrets are deliberately built to lack the capacity to track and guide missiles to different targets? Does it make sense not to give missile turrets such capabilities?

That breaks (a little) with LBB2 and the Multi-Target program rule, but we're not talking about LBB2. We both know how incompatible the two books really are despite LBB5 saying mixing is fine.

We certainly do. That grandfathering rule is one of the silliest I've ever seen in any and all Traveller books. But there's a ramification to that which you're not taking into account: if the two set of rules are incompatible, one or the other must be wrong. (Or both of them could be wrong, of course, but let's not open that can of worms ).

As noted above I don't think the rules are unclear about not allowing two of any same weapon in one turret to be separate batteries.

From what you quoted, it doesn't say so. It talks of different weapons in a turret, it doesn't specify that all weapons in such a turret have to be different.


Hans

 

[Whipsnade]

So the turret is capable of guiding a laser to hit one target and a missile to hit another, but it can't guide two missiles to hit different targets? And why is that?

Hans,

It is a game artifact meant to avoid confusion and speed play. Nothing more.

And it's a good game artifact too. Look at the confusion in this one thread alone, then imagine the same confusion during a space combat session.

From what you quoted, it doesn't say so. It talks of different weapons in a turret, it doesn't specify that all weapons in such a turret have to be different.

I don't thing Dan's suggesting that.

What he is saying is that if you have a mixed turret, the same type of weapons within that turret must be grouped into a single battery. You could very well have three batteries in a single mixed triple turret if the three weapons in that turret are all of a different type.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Jeffr0]

It is a game artifact meant to avoid confusion and speed play. Nothing more.

High Guard's success as a game hinges on exactly this sort of thing. There are many things that look "obviously wrong" with the system... until you try to run competitive games with it.

In a similar way that CAR WARS tries to "help cycles as much as possible because they need all the help they can get," High Guard tries to curtail the capabilities 1) to limit the amount of dice rolling and decisions by an order of magnitude and 2) to prevent small craft from upstaging the real "stars" of the game-- the big battle cruisers.

Just to be clear, the case of one missile and two lasers in a turret-- that CANNOT be broken up into three batteries based on my understanding of the intent of the rules. To try to read three batteries as being legit in that case... that's a slimy munchkiny rules lawyer tactic that's just lame. This issue ticks me off enough that I'm willing to code a routine to look for these things in a USP for a tournament entry-- along with the usual fuel and cost validations....

 

[Matt123]

"hmmm, defences up Sulu, fire all sandcasters in non mixed mounts to fend off Big Beat Stick"

Bill- turncoat! Its ok, the debate for our fusion fighter doesn't rest on the mixed turret rule, I've already established in my last post that its not relevent and builds on the rule that mounts can be individual weapons/batteries.

tbeard - you argue that weapon mounts & turrets are one and the same. If that were the case or the intention then either the reference to weapon mounts or the reference to turrets is redundent.

However we have both references. Given both, it is clear the intention is to establish a specific rule for weapons mounts.

ie: grouping mounts into batteries is optional, which means the player has the choice.

So the choice exists to have a fighters 2 fusion gun mounts, as seperate batteries. And I can do this with any craft up to 10 mounts. This means capital ships can also have 10#5 fusion guns in 5 turrets.

far-trader, your arguement against our fusion fighter relies on the mixed turret rule. Refer back to the opening phrases of the paragraph which sets up the context for the mixed turrets rules.

Jeff0, you refer to crewing having a contribution to the debate. I'm not sure I agree, but it supports my position anyway. Bk 2 (according to previous posters, I don't have a copy thats not in deeeep storage) gives you one crew per turret, firing mixed weapons. Bk5 has small craft pilots firing all weapons of one type. Bk5 also has for Big Craft "turret weapons should have a crew" ...snip... "one per battery" (bk5's choice of words not mine & I've given plenty of page references - not sure anyone is looking at them tho...).

None of these support a view that 10#5 fusion guns in 5 turrets is illegal. let alone our humble fighter.


Back to the mixed weapons debate for a monent, the rule you guys are debating is

"mixed turrets are allowed; in such cases, each weapon is a battery"

seems pretty clear that a mixed turret of 2 beam & 1 sand (or?) has to be 3 seperate batteries.

As far as the core debate is concerned, the mixed turret rule, builds on and supports the rule allowing mounts to be individual batteries and places a limit on mixed turrets to sub 1000tn ships. It is not a rule that over-rides the earlier rule that allows individual mounts to be batteries.

So far, for our fighter we have Matt. Against we have Bill, tbeard & far trader (whom would both allow it regardless). Hans hasn't articulated a position (don't forget supporting arguement) & Jeff appears to be staying neutral, probably quite rightly being our humble ref.

"Big Beat stick fended off Cap'n".
"Thank you Mr Sulu, you can remove the red shirt now..."

 

[Matt123]

So the turret is capable of guiding a laser to hit one target and a missile to hit another, but it can't guide two missiles to hit different targets? And why is that? Is it a basic physical law (similar to the one that keeps lasers mounted in the same turret from shooting in different directions), or is it because turrets are deliberately built to lack the capacity to track and guide missiles to different targets? Does it make sense not to give missile turrets such capabilities?

Simple answer, 20 minute turns.

 

[Matt123]

...that's a slimy munchkiny rules lawyer tactic

Spoke to soon, Jeff is off the fence! Drag out your copy of the rules Jeff & re-read the relevent sections. As Bill has noted several times, HG players are very tied to pre-concieved ideas held over decades. The earth is not flat!

 

[Jeffr0]

So far, for our fighter we have Matt. Against we have Bill, tbeard & far trader (whom would both allow it regardless). Hans hasn't articulated a position (don't forget supporting arguement) & Jeff appears to be staying neutral, probably quite rightly being our humble ref.

Dang... after rereading my post, I see that I contradict myself.

Just be sure to pick up the heaps of scorn, bile, and vitriol I have about this subject there...!

Anyways, strange and inexplicable limitations on small craft seem to be the name of the game. There'll definitely need to be a list of every case.

(Dang, why didn't Traveller ever have an ADQ&A type column....)

 

[Jeffr0]

Spoke to soon, Jeff is off the fence! Drag out your copy of the rules Jeff & re-read the relevent sections. As Bill has noted several times, HG players are very tied to pre-concieved ideas held over decades. The earth is not flat!

Yeah... I'm reading, I'm reading.

I forsee next year's tournament having a "No fighters" caveat!