Bays and harpoints
- Thread starter JFGarber
- Start date
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
It's a functional translation of CT High Guard where 50T and 100T bays both required losing 10 hardpoints. They were based on allowance of one bay, regardless of size, per 1000tons of hull (so 10 hardpoints).
There is some precedence* for allowing 50T bays to be 5 hardpoints though. And it's not badly unbalancing.
* at least one canon ship design, a Darrian (cruiser?)... I think, the name escapes me at the moment
There is some precedence* for allowing 50T bays to be 5 hardpoints though. And it's not badly unbalancing.
* at least one canon ship design, a Darrian (cruiser?)... I think, the name escapes me at the moment
Last edited:
It's a game balance mechanic. It also points up the power of tech levels; i.e. as TL increases a 50 dTon bay will eventually be as effective as a 100 dTon and free up 50 dTons for other uses.
If you looking for errata for MT, and you should, there's a sticky at the top of the MT forum which will point you to the official errata document for MT.
Not exactly...
HG you install in a particular order:
Give:
Th= Hull Tonnage
Ts= Spinal Tonnage
Tb= Total Tonnage of Bays
Nb= Number of Bays
Nt= Number of turrets
Nb = (Th – Ts)/1000
Nt = (Th – (Ts +Tb))/100
So, really, a CT 100Td bay takes 1/10 of a hardpoint, and a 50Td bay takes 1/20... MT reduced the allowed rates of turrets by making bays take hardpoints at all.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Err, yes, pretty much exactly, with the caveat that HG implies 10 hardpoints regardless of bay size ("per 1000tons of ship") though the example (pg 30) which is quite explicit except in showing 50ton bays in it could be interpreted to mean that 50ton bays only take away 5 hardpoint each. Example from HG summarized below:
50,000tons ship (potential 500 hardpoints)
-5,000tons of spinal weapon (costs effective 50 hardpoints)
=45,000tons of ship unweaponized (leaves potential 450 hardpoints)
-20,000tons for bays (not actual bay tonnage but allowance 20x 100ton bays at 1 bay per 1000tons costs effective 200 hardpoints or 10 hardpoints per bay*)
=25,000tons of ship unweaponized (leaves 250 hardpoints for turrets)
* note the same calculation with 50ton bays could suggest (and has to some) that they only cost 5 hardpoints per
Last edited:
It doesn't say to calucluate it that way - the text is flawed, Dan. The example being right makes the text wrong, since the text on p 30 doesn't say to multiply the size of the bays.
And one of the guiding principles in reading rulesets is to never trust examples... they are, more often than not, wrong. In this case, it may be deemed right, but it's directly in contradition to the wording of the rules; further, several published designs use the actual tonnage of bays not multiplied. MT handles it quite differently.
And one of the guiding principles in reading rulesets is to never trust examples... they are, more often than not, wrong. In this case, it may be deemed right, but it's directly in contradition to the wording of the rules; further, several published designs use the actual tonnage of bays not multiplied. MT handles it quite differently.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I'm going to vehemently agree to disagree with you on this one Wil 
In my opinion examples are THE key to understanding often confusing and confused text explaining rules. In my opinion, directly opposite yours, one of the guiding principles in reading rules is examples clarify and trump text. There should be more of them. IF they are wrong there is little hope that the rules will ever be properly interpreted by players.
You can't argue the mathematics of the example. It is clear. If it was not the intent of the game designers to have it work that way then why the so clear example? If the designers themselves can't get the example right what hope does a mere player have? I also don't see it contradictory to the text. I see it as clarifying the "per 1000tons" and (paraphrasing) "not dedicated to other (non-turret) weapons".
I constantly bemoan games for confusing and easily misinterpreted rules that could be made clear by one simple example. Examples are usually woefully missing, or themselves not good examples covering the full points. Here in HG is one almost perfect and clear example. It fails only in that it didn't include 50ton bays in it to make clear the (presumed) intention that all bays regardless of size require losing 10 hardpoints.
Until and unless (and it might have, I haven't been keeping up) there is official errata I'll take the example over the text (...and maybe not even then 
)
In my opinion examples are THE key to understanding often confusing and confused text explaining rules. In my opinion, directly opposite yours, one of the guiding principles in reading rules is examples clarify and trump text. There should be more of them. IF they are wrong there is little hope that the rules will ever be properly interpreted by players.
You can't argue the mathematics of the example. It is clear. If it was not the intent of the game designers to have it work that way then why the so clear example? If the designers themselves can't get the example right what hope does a mere player have? I also don't see it contradictory to the text. I see it as clarifying the "per 1000tons" and (paraphrasing) "not dedicated to other (non-turret) weapons".
I constantly bemoan games for confusing and easily misinterpreted rules that could be made clear by one simple example. Examples are usually woefully missing, or themselves not good examples covering the full points. Here in HG is one almost perfect and clear example. It fails only in that it didn't include 50ton bays in it to make clear the (presumed) intention that all bays regardless of size require losing 10 hardpoints.
Until and unless (and it might have, I haven't been keeping up) there is official errata I'll take the example over the text
(...and maybe not even then )The text in high guard 2 is not really ambiguous. The example clarifies what is meant by allocation of tonnage to weapons, this is the case for both the allocation of bays deffinition and example and for the allocation of turrets deffinition and example. The point here is, I think, that different classes of weapons occupy dirrerend proportions of the tonnage that must be allocated for them. The tonnage allocated to a major weapon is all used for the major weapon. In the case of bays, either 50 or 100 tonnes of the 1000 tonnes allocated is occupied by the bay and in the case of turrets, 1 tonne of the 100 tonnes allocated is occupied by the turret fire control.
Thanks to everyone for the responses. I do not have copies of CT or High Guard, so cannot review the history of this rule. For MTU, I'm leaning toward the 5 hardpoints for 50t bay option, as there doesn't seem to be a game-breaking reason to avoid this.
Over the last couple of years as I've gotten back into this with my two older kids, I've house-ruled the starship design and combat rules to pieces. I'm trying to ease the transition between small-ship MT and large-ship MT.
Over the last couple of years as I've gotten back into this with my two older kids, I've house-ruled the starship design and combat rules to pieces. I'm trying to ease the transition between small-ship MT and large-ship MT.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Happy to have not scared you off JFGarber with our crotchety grumping of 35 year old rules
Yes, the olde game is turning 35 this year!
o:
Time doesn't just fly, it jumps!
In any case, officially, welcome aboard JFGarber
Yes, the olde game is turning 35 this year!
o:Time doesn't just fly, it jumps!
In any case, officially, welcome aboard JFGarber
Happy to have not scared you off JFGarber with our crotchety grumping of 35 year old rules
Yes, the olde game is turning 35 this year!
Time doesn't just fly, it jumps!
In any case, officially, welcome aboard JFGarber
But... aren't High Guard and the Referee's Manual a few years younger than that?
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
CT was first published in 1977, so it is it's 35th anniversary year.
But the rules being discussed in this thread aren't quite 35 years old yet, aren't they? (High Guard & Referee's Manual)
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
High Guard 1st edition 1979, 2nd edition 1980; MT Referee's Manual 1987.
So no, they aren't
So no, they aren't
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
They're all Traveller from when we didn't need to preface it with "Classic"
...and mostly just updates of the same so yes they are
...and mostly just updates of the same so yes they are
32 and 25, respectfully.
Last edited:
You mean "respectively"?
Of course, all do have respect for them - well, I presume...
Spellchecking mangled my post. GRRR!!!!
Time doesn't just fly, it jumps!
In any case, officially, welcome aboard JFGarber
Thank you.
And under the category of time flying--a game I purchased in college has been dusted off for my kids. Ouch.
