tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
"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.
Well, there wouldn't be any redundancies in a set of game rules, right?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a0dd6/a0dd67a17ec8b6e6bcb45d7047f3d9bfe87084bb" alt="Smile :) :)"
Actually, as an amateur game designer myself, I've found that redundancies are easy to get, even in this day and age of search and replace. The most common occurence is when a new term is incompletely substituted for an old term. Happened in a recent editing draft of my upcoming A Fistful of TOWs III. We changed the term "pinned" to "neutralized" then to "suppressed". But we missed the change on the charts and almost didn't catch it. And somehow, we missed one reference in the text of the rules, even though we have search/replace capabilities.
IMHO "mount" is probably a better term than "turret", since there are also barbettes (which are described as "like turrets only bigger").
But at the end of the day, I think that the most reasonable inference is that mount=turret/barbette.
However we have both references. Given both, it is clear the intention is to establish a specific rule for weapons mounts.
I disagree. IMHO the text clearly intends for mounts to be the same as turrets/barbettes. I've explained why already.
Last edited: