Mixed Turrets/Batteries in HG

[atpollard]

... and (5) - by the grace of the exception - individual weapons mounted in a mixed turret. It does not provide consistency, it provides for the exception.

I also read the meaning of the paragraph in this way.

Without the "Mixed Turret Exception", a Scout or Fighter would be UNABLE to install more than one Type of weapon - No Missiles and a Sand Caster (for example).

THAT is why they added the exception to craft under 1000 tons.

Again I ask, as a practical matter: How do I aim three lasers in a triple turret at three different targets at the same time?
The default (non-exception case described in every line of the paragraph except the last) must be that three lasers installed in one turret aim and shoot together at the same target ... the definition of a battery and not 'optional'.

 

[tbeard1999]

Love the thinly veiled "your interpretation is just a house rule and not real High Guard" slur there....

Yeah, I cleverly complimented you to hide my nefarious agenda...

 

[atpollard]

"Ships with more than one mount of the same type, must group them into batteries."

IF each 'weapon mount' is one weapon as you suggest, and two Fusion Guns in a double turret are two "weapon mounts", then:
Why would the quoted text not apply to the double turret?

[Although I completely disagree with your misinterpretation. A Weapon Mount (noun) is a point on the ship where multiple weapons are mounted (verb) in a turret, barbette or fixed mount (singular noun). That fixed mount (singular noun) may hold up to three individual weapons.]

 

[Matt123]

IF each 'weapon mount' is one weapon as you suggest, and two Fusion Guns in a double turret are two "weapon mounts", then:
Why would the quoted text not apply to the double turret?

My mistake, the quote is
"Ships with more than one mount of the same type, may group them into batteries."

A Weapon Mount (noun) is a point on the ship where multiple weapons are mounted (verb) in a turret, barbette or fixed mount (singular noun). That fixed mount (singular noun) may hold up to three individual weapons.]

Assuming you are correct you have now created a battery of three linked weapons and cannot change it to form larger batteries of twenty or thirty linked weapons.

However you missed the "Weapon (singular)" at the start of the above. In addition HG has the term Hardpoint which fulfills the description you atribute to weapon mount - the interpretation you give relies on the rules writer forgetting what a hardpoint is and choosing not to talk about individual weapons in the first major paragraph in a section titled "Weaponry". The writer did choose to cover individual weapons first before moving on to talk about turret batteries, building to bays & spinals and finally giving more options for single turret weapons.

Paragraph structure.
1. Basic assumptions on individual weapon mounts & batteries
2. Basic assumptions on turrets & batteries
3. Individual Bay weapon mounts cannot be grouped as implied in the first sentance
4. Individual Spinal weapon mounts cannot be grouped as implied in the first sentence
5. Mixed turrets are also allowed.

The contrary view:
1. Basic assumptions on weapon mounts (which are turrets) & batteries
2. Basic assumptions on turrets & batteries (which appears to be repeating ???)
3. Bay weapons - errr, I thought this was obvious
4. Spinal weapons - you can't do this anyway, what was the writer thinking!
5. Mixed turrets - doesn't make a lot of sense as individual weapons goes against HG physics/spirit/stuff, must be a crazy legacy thing for bk2. But I like it, so long as you ignore the "each weapon is a battery" rulesy bit and force same pairs to battery up.

One version follows a logical progression, the other requires a handwave and/or "the writer had a bad day" to explain.

 

[Matt123]

Again I ask, as a practical matter: How do I aim three lasers in a triple turret at three different targets at the same time?

The same way you fire a beam laser & a fusion gun in a dual turret.

 

[Matt123]

No, no, no!
You miss the point. The point is that the example clearly states that the arrangement of weapons is derived from the optimized state of each example. That is, the number of weapons to achieve the listed weapons factor is met exactly, with no "wasted" weapons.

IF it were OK to have each individual WEAPON as a battery, then 240 Factor-1 batteries would also be an optimal configuration, and therefor included in the example. It is not, strongly indicating IT'S NOT OK! =]

??? The second sentance won't allow you to have more than 10 weapons as individual batteries, its against the rules !!!

So of course the example won't give the 240 #1 option. Obviously the writers figured the concept of individual weapons as a starting point for a section on weapons & batteries, in less need of an example than the more complicated battery concept. Ironically it seems most players then focused exclusively on the batteries concept. The example was too good

 

[dean]

My mistake, the quote is
"Ships with more than one mount of the same type, may group them into batteries."



Assuming you are correct you have now created a battery of three linked weapons and cannot change it to form larger batteries of twenty or thirty linked weapons.
He is correct because the rules EXPLICITLY state that: i.e. "Battery configurations are determined when the ship is built, not on the spur of the moment" (page 29, Weaponry, Paragraph 4.
However you missed the "Weapon (singular)" at the start of the above. In addition HG has the term Hardpoint which fulfills the description you atribute to weapon mount - the interpretation you give relies on the rules writer forgetting what a hardpoint is and choosing not to talk about individual weapons in the first major paragraph in a section titled "Weaponry". The writer did choose to cover individual weapons first before moving on to talk about turret batteries, building to bays & spinals and finally giving more options for single turret weapons. No, I think that the wording may be slightly confusing, and may be better stated as "Ships with more than one mount of a weapon type...", but English is difficult that way. In addition, the statement in sentence three that batteries are ONE to TEN turrets is unambiguous and should allay any issues that this particular word-order conundrum seems to generate.

Paragraph structure.
1. Basic assumptions on individual weapon mounts & batteries - WE AGREE ON THIS, if you mean mounts are: Spinal mount, Bay mount, Barbettes, and Turrets.
2. Basic assumptions on turrets & batteries - Rule about grouping. Sure.
3. Individual Bay weapon mounts cannot be grouped as implied in the first sentance It's not implied. It's clearly stated. Once the GENERAL rule is stated, we move on to EXCEPTIONS. Here is the FIRST exception to the general rule.
4. Individual Spinal weapon mounts cannot be grouped as implied in the first sentenceThis is for clarity. It may be to prevent people from thinking they can mix bay weapons with spinal weapons (for whatever bizarre reason) to make a battery.
5. Mixed turrets are also allowed. The second EXCEPTION to the general rule, with more specifics on battery grouping as well.

The contrary view:
1. Basic assumptions on weapon mounts (which are turrets) & batteries Again, WE AGREE ON THIS, if you mean mounts are: Spinal mount, Bay mount, Barbettes, and Turrets.
2. Basic assumptions on turrets & batteries (which appears to be repeating ???) It's not repeating. It's adding detail tot he first sentence. First sentence says you can have weapons in groups, second sentence tells you how you have to do that.
3. Bay weapons - errr, I thought this was obvious Only if you make mistaken presumptions about mount=turret. Spinal mounts and bay mounts are referred to as mounts in the rules. Again, since we now have a general rule that mounts must be grouped, we now include the exceptions.
4. Spinal weapons - you can't do this anyway, what was the writer thinking!See my comment above. He apparently should have also clarified that batteries cannot be created out of individual weapons in a turret. On wait! He did that in sentence three!
5. Mixed turrets - doesn't make a lot of sense as individual weapons goes against HG physics/spirit/stuff, must be a crazy legacy thing for bk2. But I like it, so long as you ignore the "each weapon is a battery" rulesy bit and force same pairs to battery up.And the fact that it's "crazy" and is out of the HG "spirit" and that you like it so long as you can houserule it should tell you that all you other assumptions are wrong! It's in there because it allows a small craft like a fighter or scout to have a triple turret with offensive and defensive capabilities.

One version follows a logical progression, the other requires a handwave and/or "the writer had a bad day" to explain.Or perhaps he realized the level of munchkinism and rules-lawyering that might occur if he didn't specifically state the EXCEPTIONS to the general rule! Remember, Mr. Miller was a war game designer. Muchkinism was (is) rampant in complicated war games, and the designer was looking to head off ideas like allowing batteries to be formed out of individual weapons in single turrets, combining bays into batteries, and matching them up with the spinal mount (even though other rules later on prohibit same).

SOOOOO:

Hardpoint does not describe mounts. It's a place on the hull to put a kind of mount; namely, a turret. This is an important distinction because hardpoints don't "weigh" anything, but turrets do. In addition, it's interesting to note that however many individual WEAPONS go in a single MOUNT (turret, in this specific case) the "weight" of the turret does not change. THREE weapons, ONE mount. Note that BAYS are a mount. Weapons go in the bay. The bay is the mount just as the turret is the mount. The weapons don't even have to be placed in the bay at construction - but the space is only 50% utilizable for other uses.

The 3rd sentence EXPLICITLY STATES that a battery can be one to ten turrets. Not fractional turrets. Not a weapon in a turret. One to ten turrets. Not complicated at all.

The mixed turret rule provides an exception to this more general rule; not the other way around. It does not provide "more options" for single weapon mounting. This is a ridiculous assumption because at no other place in the text does it mention that you cannot mix weapons in a mount! It's NOT against the rules to do this UNTIL the sentence that mentions it says so. This structure makes this sentence an EXCEPTION to the general rule, not an OPTION adding to the general rule. It then goes on to EXPLICITLY state how the weapons need to be organized into batteries. Once again, if weapons ordinarily could be organized into batteries consisting of partial turret quantities, THIS SENTENCE is entirely unnecessary! It's inclusion, again, creates an exception to the standing rule - all weapons in a mount are the smallest functional unit of a battery! This is directly supported by sentence three! You know, the one that says batteries are ONE to TEN turrets!

Your little set of paragraph structure assumptions sets up a straw man, because you interpret the rules one way and disagree with the "correct" interpretation. Sentence three in and of itself alone prohibits the creation of two batteries in one unmixed turret. Please address this issue directly (as you asked everyone else to do with your "weapon=mount" assumption) and tell me how it can be read any other way; I'd really like to see your justification.

And, as for your #3 above ("-err, I thought this was obvious"), truthfully, we're all thinking the same thing about your assumptions. We thought this was obvious.

(No offense intended. Hopefully, it does not read that way).

 

[Matt123]

This debate rests entirely on what you decide a weapon mount is.

yes, it appears so.

If you decide that EACH location in a turret is a weapon mount, and allow unmixed turrets to be split into batteries then why do you need a mixed-turret rule exception?

The mixed turret rule defines that you can only 'mix' weapons in certain circumstances, in the same vien that the Bay & Spinal rules state they cannot be grouped. Both are required because otherwise the first sentance would allow unlimited mixed turrets and batteries of bay weapons.

If it's allowed, then why does it explicitly state the mixed turrets must organize individual weapons into batteries?

Because otherwise you could have mixed turrets in large batteries, making damage allocation very problematic.

Player 1. hit, lose a battery
Player 2 (called Matt funnily enuff). Can't, my four #9 batteries are all in mixed turrets. You can't logically destroy one third of a turret 30 times...

The mixed turret rule is completely unneeded under your interpretation.

Should have asked first!

But, interesting points. You are very correct in that the definition of weapon mount appears to be the key issue.

 

[dean]

Because otherwise you could have mixed turrets in large batteries, making damage allocation very problematic.

Player 1. hit, lose a battery
Player 2 (called Matt funnily enuff). Can't, my four #9 batteries are all in mixed turrets. You can't logically destroy one third of a turret 30 times...

But, interesting points. You are very correct in that the definition of weapon mount appears to be the key issue.

Just as thinking that you should be able to assign individual weapons in a turret into separate batteries would cause.

Player 1. hit, lose a battery
Player 2 (called Dean funnily enough). Can't, my two #4 batteries are in the same turret and you can't logically destroy only one half of the turret and expect the other half to still function.....
:devil:

 

[dean]

And I still want to know how you specifically reconcile your point of view to the third sentence: "A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten."

 

[Matt123]

Excellent post You have hit on the arguement I would make in your shoes.

B. Page 29: "A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten."

The key, I think is B. It says a battery may be as little as one turret. You cannot disingenuously define this to mean that as 1/3 of a turret or 1/2 of a turret can be a battery. This stands regardless of whether you choose to, OR are required to organize your weapons into batteries.

One major flaw in the arguement though. It relies on emphasising the turret over the battery in a sentance that sits in a rules section entitled 'Batteries', implying very strongly that 'batteries' are the important concept rather than turrets, which of course have thier own section...

If you emphasise the battery as you would expect in the 'Batteries' rules, both the following batteries are as few as one turret.
1 #1 beam in a single turret
1 #1 beam in a 'shared' turret

They say "mount", I think, because it refers universally to turrets and barbettes, which they define as larger single turrets.

'Turrets' does this job, Barbettes as you note are just a little larger than the norm. There is no other impact on the game.

As an aside of how the author(s) sometimes trip even themselves up...snip

It doesn't give you pause for thought that you have to rely on "they made a mistake" as an arguement? Your example uses two sentances in widely seperated paragraphs dealing with different topics. Whilst I happily accept under these circumstances 'mistakes' may happen, here you are talking about the opening sentance of a major section, leading the 'Weaponry' chapter. It is extremely unlikely a mistake was made here & much more likely it includes a very basic assumption on Weapons.

you did make me turn the page tho'. I had forgotten the Turrets rules sections and its multiple (6 - I counted, yes very sad I know...) references to the 'mounting of weapons' in turrets. I note with humour that a turret is 'emplaced' on the hull rather than 'mounted'. A rather particular choice of word that, 'emplaced'. A turret is a weapon mount that is emplaced but not mounted. Hmmm, probably why no-one has referered to this section on Turrets to support thier position!

 

[Matt123]

(No offense intended. Hopefully, it does not read that way).

None taken, be a little patient with my posting tho' I think we were crossing posts whilst I was drafting & watching Southpark!

I await with interest your response to my last!

 

[rancke]

you did make me turn the page tho'. I had forgotten the Turrets rules sections and its multiple (6 - I counted, yes very sad I know...) references to the 'mounting of weapons' in turrets. I note with humour that a turret is 'emplaced' on the hull rather than 'mounted'. A rather particular choice of word that, 'emplaced'. A turret is a weapon mount that is emplaced but not mounted. Hmmm, probably why no-one has referered to this section on Turrets to support thier position!

A turret is a place to mount weapons. A weapon mount. As in definition c (1) of the third entry here. A weapon is not a weapon mount, it is a weapon. Which is mounted on a weapon mount. Or, in this case, in a weapon mount, namely a turret.


Hans

 

[Matt123]

Or perhaps he realized the level of munchkinism and rules-lawyering that might occur

It would never occour to me as a writer that a weapon mount could mount anything but a weapon in the singular Maybe a weapon system, but then you have a premade Battery...

you are correct you have now created a battery of three linked weapons and cannot change it to form larger batteries of twenty or thirty linked weapons.

He is correct because the rules EXPLICITLY state that: i.e. "Battery configurations are determined when the ship is built, not on the spur of the moment" (page 29, Weaponry, Paragraph 4.

Agreed & a battery is a weapon system. You cannot have larger batteries made up of smaller ones. Batteries can only comprise of individual weapons. This is a major part of the first sentance.

The writer did choose to cover individual weapons first before moving on to talk about turret batteries, building to bays & spinals and finally giving more options for single turret weapons.

No, I think that the wording may be slightly confusing ...snip

You are relying on 'they made a mistake' again.

Is it that odd that in a section on Weaponry and Batteries, discussion would start with how individual weapons relate to batteries.

 

[dean]

Excellent post You have hit on the arguement I would make in your shoes.

One major flaw in the arguement though. It relies on emphasising the turret over the battery in a sentance that sits in a rules section entitled 'Batteries', implying very strongly that 'batteries' are the important concept rather than turrets, which of course have thier own section...

Weapons also have their own section. It's called the Turret Weapons table. It's called that because it describes how the weapons in the turrets form the batteries (factors). Saying that a section is "emphasizing" something other than what you want to read into it is misinterpretation. It says Turrets. Not Weapons.

If you emphasise the battery as you would expect in the 'Batteries' rules, both the following batteries are as few as one turret.
1 #1 beam in a single turret
1 #1 beam in a 'shared' turret

Nope. Why?
Reason 1. Because the rules state turrets, not weapons. Very different terms, not ambiguous at all (like "mount" seems to be). A weapon in a "shared" turret is not a whole turret. The rule would say weapons in that case, NOT turrets.

Reason 2. Batteries ARE the most important concept, as they define the combat system in HG. Turrets are the subunits of batteries (ignoring the bays and spinals, which we agree on), and weapons are the subunits of turrets. Fire is done in batteries, not turrets.

'Turrets' does this job, Barbettes as you note are just a little larger than the norm. There is no other impact on the game.

It doesn't give you pause for thought that you have to rely on "they made a mistake" as an arguement? Your example uses two sentances in widely seperated paragraphs dealing with different topics. Whilst I happily accept under these circumstances 'mistakes' may happen, here you are talking about the opening sentance of a major section, leading the 'Weaponry' chapter. It is extremely unlikely a mistake was made here & much more likely it includes a very basic assumption on Weapons.

NO. I was pointing out that although I could contort my reading of them to construe the two pieces of writing to mean two different things, they do not.

In addition, given that your arguement above is about stuff in the "Weaponry" section, I also have to point out that there are two subheaders, "Batteries" and "Turrets", and 3 or 4 others, under the "Weaponry" chapter. These subheaders divide the sections, they DO NOT INDICATE precedence of one over the other, merely that the major emphasis of the topic has changed. And, once again, the "assumption" here seems to be solely yours. I have not seen anyone else supporting your case, whilst a number of board notables have rebutted it.

you did make me turn the page tho'. I had forgotten the Turrets rules sections and its multiple (6 - I counted, yes very sad I know...) references to the 'mounting of weapons' in turrets. I note with humour that a turret is 'emplaced' on the hull rather than 'mounted'. A rather particular choice of word that, 'emplaced'. A turret is a weapon mount that is emplaced but not mounted. Hmmm, probably why no-one has referered to this section on Turrets to support thier position!

I'd like to note the the word "Mount" refers to the function of the turret, not it's emplacement upon the hull. The word "mount" indicates that weapons are placed in this vessel for discharge.

Once again, you have ignored points I have made in other posts, in this case specifically how you previously equated turrets to hardpoints to mounts (not sure about this one- couldn't find the post and I am not gonna search all night). They are not equivalent!

Hardpoints provide a designated place to emplace (i.e. literally "put in place") a turret. A turret, like a Bay or Spinal location, is a MOUNT, where one or more WEAPONS are mounted. Each MOUNT is limited by the rules as to what type and number of weapons may be placed there. MOUNTS, specifically TURRETS (because the other types have rules relegating them to single mount status) are organized into BATTERIES consisting of TURRETS. Not weapons.

No one referred to this section before because no one presumed that anyone could possible confuse WEAPONS to be TURRETS, as you seem to insist.

Continually misinterpreting what the rules clearly state does make this discussion difficult. I do not believe it's purposeful, it is just that you read the text with a idea that your view is correct. Honestly, when I read the initial posts, I was like "Hey! It's been (literally) decades since I read those rules. I think I'll go reread and chime in!" I read them without bias and arrived at the conclusion that you are, well, wrong. I messaged Mr. Miller about this and asked for a ruling (yes, everyone else, I do feel bad about that, as I want him doing new stuff not reviewing old stuff) but it's an easy question for him to answer, or maybe have DonM throw down the law).

 

[Matt123]

A turret is a place to mount weapons. A weapon mount. As in definition c (1) of the third entry here. A weapon is not a weapon mount, it is a weapon. Which is mounted on a weapon mount. Or, in this case, in a weapon mount, namely a turret.

A weapon requires a weapon mount, else it cannot be mounted. Rest assured this has been my position all along!

A turret is not mounted it is 'emplaced' and is therefore not a mount. A weapon may be mounted in a turret, the weapon mount enables this. The turret is then 'emplaced' on the hull.

Ref pg30 on Turrets.

No cut & paste on Mirriams then!
Mount
Frame, Support
as (c) (1): an undercarrage or part on which a device (or an artilery piece) rests in service.

Note the 'Frame, Support'. A Turret is neither, it is an armoured housing designed to protect weapons mounted within, on support frames.

Note the singular 'a device' and 'an artillery piece', not multiple such as 3 beam lasers.

Of course tho, the definition is completely invalidated by the final point. Big guns never tire!

 

[dean]

??? The second sentance won't allow you to have more than 10 weapons as individual batteries, its against the rules !!!

So of course the example won't give the 240 #1 option. Obviously the writers figured the concept of individual weapons as a starting point for a section on weapons & batteries, in less need of an example than the more complicated battery concept. Ironically it seems most players then focused exclusively on the batteries concept. The example was too good

I'm going back to this one to illustrate how you misinterpret what's said. I made an argument that the rules excluded this example because it was illegal. The above was your response. In the last post, you talk about how emphasizing "turrets" over "batteries" in the "Batteries" section was why the clear text of sentence 3 ("A battery may be as few as one turret, or as many as ten...") was not a good argument from me. Yet, you go all the way down to the level of WEAPONS to justify why the example in the "Batteries" section is not to your liking!!!

Furthermore: That section EXPLICITLY STATES, once again, that "Other configurations are possible, these selections constitute the optimal battery configurations on the turret weapons table". It does NOT say that the listing is an incomplete list of optimal configurations, it does say "HEY! Matt! This is a definitive list of all the optimal, and therefore legal, configurations as indicated by the rules and this table!"

IF IT WERE legal to allow individual weapons in the mounts to be individually assigned as a battery, one of the "optimal configurations" would HAVE TO BE 240 factor 1 beam lasers. It does NOT appear in the list, yet under your interpretation of the rules it should have. You nevertheless discount the example as "too good" because clearly the rules are talking about weapons, not turrets (as sentence 3 clearly states, but you also have to explain that away), how the mixed turret rule is "additional options".

Finally, let's think about the Table itself. If batteries were organized around WEAPONS and not TURRETS, why the hell do we even need a turret weapons table? Would not then itr just be called the Weapons Battery Table, or the Battery Weapons table? Why bother referring to turrets at all.

And just why do you think the designer bothered to structure the table in such a way that all the weapons on the Turret Weapons table that can fit into a triple turret all factor up in units divisible by three, but the plasma and fusion guns only step up in units divisible by two?

And barbettes are an important concept because the TL and weight differences are significant, and higher TL turret PA mounts are shifted up one spot on the table.

All in all, the basis of your assumption make so many parts of the rules completely unneeded it's laughable to even presume that the distinction needs to be made.

Hopefully, the designer or his agent will stop by and clarify this for us definitively, and soon

 

[dean]

A weapon requires a weapon mount, else it cannot be mounted. Rest assured this has been my position all along!

A turret is not mounted it is 'emplaced' and is therefore not a mount. A weapon may be mounted in a turret, the weapon mount enables this. The turret is then 'emplaced' on the hull.

Ref pg30 on Turrets.

No cut & paste on Mirriams then!
Mount
Frame, Support
as (c) (1): an undercarrage or part on which a device (or an artilery piece) rests in service.

Note the 'Frame, Support'. A Turret is neither, it is an armoured housing designed to protect weapons mounted within, on support frames.

Note the singular 'a device' and 'an artillery piece', not multiple such as 3 beam lasers.

Of course tho, the definition is completely invalidated by the final point. Big guns never tire!

A turret IS a weapon mount. No amount of prevarication will change this. If you held this position "all along", then why are you trying to dispense with the entire concept of turret? Turret Weapon Table. Not Weapon Battery Table.

The word mount DOES NOT REFER TO THE POSITIONING OF THE TURRET. It refers to the placement of the weapon(s) in the turret (or bay, or barbette).

Emplace: to put in place or position

Mount: 8. to raise or put into position for use, as a gun.
9. (of a fortress or warship) to have or carry (guns) in position for use.

(All from dictionary.com)

Also, from Book 5 page 30: "Turrets are installed on hardpoints..." clearly the author was not overly hung up on using different words to describe the same thing. Emplacing a turret on a hardpoint is the same as installing it there.

Clearly, you are thinking "emplacement" as unmoving or fixed or unprotected. Note that even land "emplacements" in fortresses can be and often were land placed turrets. You could also say that a turret is mounted at a hardpoint, but the author does avoid that terminology, because mount means where the weapons are placed, not where the turrets are placed.

The TURRET is ONE of the kinds of MOUNTS - or, as you define it, the part where the device rests for service. No part of your definition prevents or precludes the mount from being additionally armored, or mechanized, to provide motion or protection for the weapon. The turret can be both the "frame" and "support", and positional mechanism and armor. No one refers to a tank's turret and thinks that the gun's "mount" isn't part and parcel to it. By definition the Turret is the entire contents of that part of the vehicle - including the main gun and one or more smaller weapons.

Note that on WWII (and modern) tanks it is common to describe the MG on the cupola as the "pintel mount", and the MG that fired along the same axis of the main gun as the "coaxial mount", and the MG in the hull as the "hull mount". All of these real-life usages violate your narrow definition of "mount", yet all are referring to mechanized and unmechanized, armored and unarmored "mounts".

Finally, are you REALLY trying to suggest that the naval use of the term "mount" when it refers to, say, a Quad 40 mm Bofors AA mount is inappropriate? Mind you, this is four separate artillery pieces mounted on ONE device. It's referred to as a "mount" but includes the gun shield (armor), traverse and elevation mechanisms, gunners seat, aiming devices, etc.

 

[rancke]

Note the 'Frame, Support'. A Turret is neither, it is an armoured housing designed to protect weapons mounted within, on support frames.

Note the singular 'a device' and 'an artillery piece', not multiple such as 3 beam lasers.

tur·ret
Pronunciation: \ˈtər-ət, ˈtə-rət, ˈtu̇r-ət\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English touret, from Anglo-French turette, tourette, diminutive of tur, tour tower — more at tower
Date: 14th century
1: a little tower ; specifically : an ornamental structure at an angle of a larger structure
2 a: a pivoted and revolvable holder in a machine tool b: a device (as on a microscope or a television camera) holding several lenses
3 a: a tall building usually moved on wheels and formerly used for carrying soldiers and equipment for breaching or scaling a wall b (1): a gunner's fixed or movable enclosure in an airplane (2): a revolving armored structure on a warship that protects one or more guns mounted within it (3): a similar upper structure usually for one gun on a tank​

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

I direct your attention to definition 3 (2), according to which a turret is a place to mount one or more weapons.


Hans

 

[Matt123]

Weapons also have their own section. It's called the ...

Weaponry chapter, page 29.

Saying that a section is "emphasizing" something other than what you want to read into it is misinterpretation. It says Turrets. Not Weapons.

So you are saying that title of a section has no bearing on the contents that follow...

Reason 1. Because the rules state turrets, not weapons. Very different terms, not ambiguous at all (like "mount" seems to be). A weapon in a "shared" turret is not a whole turret. The rule would say weapons in that case, NOT turrets.

Was discussing a Battery within the Battery section of the rules. This battery is a #1 laser sharing a turret with other #1 batteries. The battery may be as few as one turret, which this one is.

Reason 2. Batteries ARE the most important concept, as they define the combat system in HG. Turrets are the subunits of batteries (ignoring the bays and spinals, which we agree on), and weapons are the subunits of turrets. Fire is done in batteries, not turrets.

Not quite, Batteries are made up of individual weapons. The only reference to turrets in the 'Batteries' section does not indicate that turrets are sub-units. Its a convenient way to organise them, but thats it. The route to a Battery USP involves counting weapons not turrets.

In addition, given that your arguement above is about stuff in the "Weaponry" section, I also have to point out that there are two subheaders, "Batteries" and "Turrets", and 3 or 4 others, under the "Weaponry" chapter. These subheaders divide the sections, they DO NOT INDICATE precedence of one over the other, merely that the major emphasis of the topic has changed.

Entirely correct.

And, once again, the "assumption" here seems to be solely yours. I have not seen anyone else supporting your case, whilst a number of board notables have rebutted it.

Ahhh, the group think approach rather than the rules based approach.

I'd like to note the the word "Mount" refers to the function of the turret, not it's emplacement upon the hull. The word "mount" indicates that weapons are placed in this vessel for discharge.

You are having to make this up! I refered to the Turret section, where did you get your 'mount refers to the function of the turret' definition!

"Weapons may be mounted in turrets emplaced on the hull." To be mounted in a turret a weapon requires a weapon mount (singular, fits one weapon). A turret houses both weapon and mount (& targeting, stabilisers, electronics, etc) within an armoured housing. Its function is to protect the contents, not act as a mount.

Once again, you have ignored points I have made in other posts, in this case ...

Hmmm, thought I had covered all your points. If its important post it again, you have been prolific in your posting!

A turret, like a Bay or Spinal location, is a MOUNT, where one or more WEAPONS are mounted.

But... what is a weapon mount.

Each MOUNT is limited by the rules as to what type and number of weapons may be placed there. MOUNTS, specifically TURRETS (because the other types have rules relegating them to single mount status) are organized into BATTERIES consisting of TURRETS. Not weapons.

I note with interest you are using the phrase 'mount' in preference to 'weapon mount' which is the key phrase in question.

No one referred to this section before because no one presumed that anyone could possible confuse WEAPONS to be TURRETS, as you seem to insist.

Whoe, back up. Where did this concept come from! Please explain, I've suggested nothing of the sort.

Continually misinterpreting what the rules clearly state does make this discussion difficult. I do not believe it's purposeful, it is just that you read the text with a idea that your view is correct. Honestly, when I read the initial posts, I was like "Hey! It's been (literally) decades since I read those rules. I think I'll go reread and chime in!" I read them without bias and arrived at the conclusion that you are, well, wrong. I messaged Mr. Miller about this and asked for a ruling (yes, everyone else, I do feel bad about that, as I want him doing new stuff not reviewing old stuff) but it's an easy question for him to answer, or maybe have DonM throw down the law).

I can tell you from experience that rules writers don't remember thier rules 5 minutes after they get thier teeth stuck into a new project, let alone after 30 years. I'll be surprised if he comes back with anything other than 'it says what it says'.

It still comes back to the question of what is a 'weapon mount'. Is it a turret or is it a mount within a turret for a single weapon.

Anyway, we are playing postal catch-up & I appear to be 2 or three posts behind yours! I'll do my next catch-up tomorrow.