far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Ah, much thanks. Been a while, I either missed that errata or forgot it
And thank Marc from us all for clearing the rest up
Mixed Turrets/Batteries in HG
- Thread starter Masconi
- Start date
Ah, much thanks. Been a while, I either missed that errata or forgot it
And thank Marc from us all for clearing the rest up
Greetings Don,
referance: Bk5 pg 29, Weaponry section, Batteries, first line.
"Ships with more than one weapon mount of a type, may group them into batteries."
I think over the course of this discussion, my view rests on this opening sentance of the Batteries section. Define the meaning of 'weapon mount' and you will find one arguement or the other falls over.
The contrary arguement also primarily rests on the opening sentence. Usually its discounted as a 'mistake' or 'unclear'. There has also been vigourous debate that the term 'weapon mount' actually means 'turret', a variation on the 'mistake' theory.
After sleeping on it last night (Dean tuckered me out, he fights a good fight...). I'll put forward two arguements for consideration. The first is the core of my view, the use of the object term 'weapon mount' vs the act of 'mounting' or 'mounted within'. (Nouns, verbs, pah... its all greek to me). The second is my support given that the term used was not a 'mistake' or poor writing by the author and that once the first sentence is understood correctly, the rest of the paragraph makes better sense.
First, the English arguement.
The act of 'mounting' is used where there is an interface (a support structure or frame for the object) for the object on or in the something it is to be mounted on. This support structure in common English is refered to as the 'object mount'
If there is no interface, 'mounting' is not the term used as there is no 'mount' required, instead the object is 'placed', 'attached', 'enclosed', 'kept within' or whatever.
The act of mounting an object on or in something, does not make the something a mount. It is the something an object is mounted on.
For example:
A picture may be mounted on a wall, is the wall a picture mount or is that the nail or picture hook.
An engine is mounted in a car, is the car an engine mount or is that the 'engine mounts'.
A police car mounts flashing lights, is the car a light mount, or is that the brackets required.
An M203 grenade launcher is mounted under an M16, is the M16 a grenade launcher mount or is that the specialised stock holding the M203 to the M16.
I can go on. There may even be exceptions to the rule - English is good like that, but I'm sure you get my drift.
If there is no mounting frame/support involved, the action term mount is not used.
Fluffy dice are 'placed' in a car and mounted once hooked over the rear vision mirror.
A candlestick is placed on a table, once screwed on, it is attached.
A pistol is kept in a pistol case for storage, gripped in your hand for firing and mounted in a firing frame for testing. A pistol can also be mounted on the wall using brackets.
The act of 'mounted/ing' requires an object and an object mount, in addition to the something it is to be mounted on. The term 'object mount' refers to the object's neccesary interface, enabling the object to be mounted on something else. Without the mount it cannot be mounted. It can be placed, held, attached, or whatever, but the action term mounted/ing is not used.
To summerise, a 'weapon mount' is the interface enabling the weapon (singular) to be mounted to the turret. As opposed to being placed in, attached to, held by, or...
Second, the 'Author new what he was writing' arguement
Most views offered rely on the premis the author made an error in using 'weapon mount' when he really intended to say 'turret'. The options people have used given this quandry is to either ignore the first sentence entirely (I had trouble just getting contributors to even read it...) or treat 'weapon mount' as meaning 'turret'. The resulting interpretation (like mine) builds up on this core assumption like a house of cards (again like mine).
Reading the sentance and interpreting 'weapon mount' as discussed above, you reach the conclusion the author is presenting the base assumption that grouping same type weapons is optional (up to 10 weapon mounts).
If you have 10 fusion guns in 5 turrets and choose not to group them, you have 10 #5 batteries.
I believe the author knew what he was writing. The reasons are;
Its an opening sentence sentence. The chances of editing errors here are far lower than elsewhere (and yes, I have plenty of rules editing experience...). The opening sentence sets out the authors opening assumptions or ideas for the rest of the paragraph (& section
in this case) to build on.
The opening sentance also starts with the smallest unit of concern, the weapon. And in quick succesion moves onto Turrets, Bay, & Spinals. A very logical sequence of size and it ensures each important element relating to Batteries is dealt with.
Having used the term 'weapon mount', it of course relates to all weapons, including Bay & Spinal. The authors intentions were to not let Bays and Spinals be grouped. So they become explicitely stated as batteries of one.
Given that individual weapons can be batteries, the Mixed turret rule go's on to allow mixed turrets, by implication also excluding mixed turrets in larger craft. It also states each weapon is a battery, first following the assumption that multiple batteries within a turret is fine (the effect of the first sentance), secondly preventing the situation where larger batteries are mixed up and the damage resolution logic is destroyed. (eg: 10 dual turrets carrying 10 beam & 10 fusion, with two different weapons in each turret - a weapon-n result would lead to arguements on several levels).
So, grouping weapons is optional. Single weapons each forms a battery, this battery may be a few as one turret, which they have to be as they must be mounted in a turret, they cannot be mounted elsewhere (Small craft excepted).
I'll pause here, one contrary arguement, is that a battery 'must' be an entire turret of weapons. There is no imperitive for that, no expectation in the opening sentence and it is contradicted by the 'mixed turrets' rule which demonstrates that in the Traveller universe the technology & capability for allowing up to 30 weapons (10 turrets) to operate independently is alive, well developed and indeed, a basic assumption. I should add that the capability of using same type weapons independently is limited to 10 weapons (second sentance in our trusty paragraph). Which ties in nicely with bk2 & the mixed turret rule (ie: 10 turrets can contain 10 #1 sand, 10 #1 beam, 10 #1 missile, more than 10 of any of these weapons & you must group them.)
Sooo, grouping weapons is optional, single weapons form batteries. And the tech and basic Traveller assumptions provide for individual weapons to be targeting independently (In HG, so long as you have a crew man per battery, apparently in BK 2 its one crew man per turret capable of firing 3 #1 batteries and the Bk2 crew rules take precedence. Gotta find my copy )
A side issue relating to mixed turrets. "mixed turrets are allowed: in such cases, each weapon is a battery". Seems pretty clear that it says each weapon is a battery. However the arguement has been put that it really means each single weapon is a battery and a pair must be grouped. A variation on the 'mistake' view, neccesitated by defining 'weapon mount' as a 'turret'.
Last of all, I'll mention our trusty fusion gun armed fighter. So far my arguement has been relating to Big Craft and it allows for example 10 #5 fusion guns in 5 turrets (go the BSG broadside ).
The fighter aspect is resolved by correctly interpreting 'weapon mount', which of course means we can have 2 #5 fusion guns. The question here is in crewing. Pg 35, Small Craft, Weapons. "The pilot is assumed to be the gunner for one type of weapon on the craft." Reading this it appears our Fusion fighter does not need a gunner. However this aspect is also under contention, the written word is mistaken and the phrase is redundent as 'obviously' you cannot have 2 same type weapons forming two batteries. Again define 'weapon mount' correctly in the first sentance and one view or the other collapses.
To conclude.
Reading the opening assumption correctly is key, the confusion amongst contributors revolves around the object 'weapon mount'. Resolve this and one arguement or the other will collapse.
In support of my position I suggest the contrary view relies heavily on poor writing and poor choice of words by the author as reasons for thier view. Further examples of poor writing & poor choice of words follow in the text, due to the various ways contributors chose to engage with the object 'weapon mount' in the opening sentance.
My view is that choice of words is intended, appropriate and removes the need to assume author mistakes elsewhere. The authors intent and spirit are clear, consistent with previous publications/canon and make logical sense.
Over to you, this I think is a pretty good position & if I were present, I'd just be repeating myself. Having worked with & employed rules writers, I know the first response Marc will make is "what did I write?", the second will be "well, thats what I wrote, I can't change it now even if I wanted to."
Have fun
Matt
referance: Bk5 pg 29, Weaponry section, Batteries, first line.
"Ships with more than one weapon mount of a type, may group them into batteries."
I think over the course of this discussion, my view rests on this opening sentance of the Batteries section. Define the meaning of 'weapon mount' and you will find one arguement or the other falls over.
The contrary arguement also primarily rests on the opening sentence. Usually its discounted as a 'mistake' or 'unclear'. There has also been vigourous debate that the term 'weapon mount' actually means 'turret', a variation on the 'mistake' theory.
After sleeping on it last night (Dean tuckered me out, he fights a good fight...). I'll put forward two arguements for consideration. The first is the core of my view, the use of the object term 'weapon mount' vs the act of 'mounting' or 'mounted within'. (Nouns, verbs, pah... its all greek to me). The second is my support given that the term used was not a 'mistake' or poor writing by the author and that once the first sentence is understood correctly, the rest of the paragraph makes better sense.
First, the English arguement.
The act of 'mounting' is used where there is an interface (a support structure or frame for the object) for the object on or in the something it is to be mounted on. This support structure in common English is refered to as the 'object mount'
If there is no interface, 'mounting' is not the term used as there is no 'mount' required, instead the object is 'placed', 'attached', 'enclosed', 'kept within' or whatever.
The act of mounting an object on or in something, does not make the something a mount. It is the something an object is mounted on.
For example:
A picture may be mounted on a wall, is the wall a picture mount or is that the nail or picture hook.
An engine is mounted in a car, is the car an engine mount or is that the 'engine mounts'.
A police car mounts flashing lights, is the car a light mount, or is that the brackets required.
An M203 grenade launcher is mounted under an M16, is the M16 a grenade launcher mount or is that the specialised stock holding the M203 to the M16.
I can go on. There may even be exceptions to the rule - English is good like that, but I'm sure you get my drift.
If there is no mounting frame/support involved, the action term mount is not used.
Fluffy dice are 'placed' in a car and mounted once hooked over the rear vision mirror.
A candlestick is placed on a table, once screwed on, it is attached.
A pistol is kept in a pistol case for storage, gripped in your hand for firing and mounted in a firing frame for testing. A pistol can also be mounted on the wall using brackets.
The act of 'mounted/ing' requires an object and an object mount, in addition to the something it is to be mounted on. The term 'object mount' refers to the object's neccesary interface, enabling the object to be mounted on something else. Without the mount it cannot be mounted. It can be placed, held, attached, or whatever, but the action term mounted/ing is not used.
To summerise, a 'weapon mount' is the interface enabling the weapon (singular) to be mounted to the turret. As opposed to being placed in, attached to, held by, or...
Second, the 'Author new what he was writing' arguement
Most views offered rely on the premis the author made an error in using 'weapon mount' when he really intended to say 'turret'. The options people have used given this quandry is to either ignore the first sentence entirely (I had trouble just getting contributors to even read it...) or treat 'weapon mount' as meaning 'turret'. The resulting interpretation (like mine) builds up on this core assumption like a house of cards (again like mine).
Reading the sentance and interpreting 'weapon mount' as discussed above, you reach the conclusion the author is presenting the base assumption that grouping same type weapons is optional (up to 10 weapon mounts).
If you have 10 fusion guns in 5 turrets and choose not to group them, you have 10 #5 batteries.
I believe the author knew what he was writing. The reasons are;
Its an opening sentence sentence. The chances of editing errors here are far lower than elsewhere (and yes, I have plenty of rules editing experience...). The opening sentence sets out the authors opening assumptions or ideas for the rest of the paragraph (& section
in this case) to build on.
The opening sentance also starts with the smallest unit of concern, the weapon. And in quick succesion moves onto Turrets, Bay, & Spinals. A very logical sequence of size and it ensures each important element relating to Batteries is dealt with.
Having used the term 'weapon mount', it of course relates to all weapons, including Bay & Spinal. The authors intentions were to not let Bays and Spinals be grouped. So they become explicitely stated as batteries of one.
Given that individual weapons can be batteries, the Mixed turret rule go's on to allow mixed turrets, by implication also excluding mixed turrets in larger craft. It also states each weapon is a battery, first following the assumption that multiple batteries within a turret is fine (the effect of the first sentance), secondly preventing the situation where larger batteries are mixed up and the damage resolution logic is destroyed. (eg: 10 dual turrets carrying 10 beam & 10 fusion, with two different weapons in each turret - a weapon-n result would lead to arguements on several levels).
So, grouping weapons is optional. Single weapons each forms a battery, this battery may be a few as one turret, which they have to be as they must be mounted in a turret, they cannot be mounted elsewhere (Small craft excepted).
I'll pause here, one contrary arguement, is that a battery 'must' be an entire turret of weapons. There is no imperitive for that, no expectation in the opening sentence and it is contradicted by the 'mixed turrets' rule which demonstrates that in the Traveller universe the technology & capability for allowing up to 30 weapons (10 turrets) to operate independently is alive, well developed and indeed, a basic assumption. I should add that the capability of using same type weapons independently is limited to 10 weapons (second sentance in our trusty paragraph). Which ties in nicely with bk2 & the mixed turret rule (ie: 10 turrets can contain 10 #1 sand, 10 #1 beam, 10 #1 missile, more than 10 of any of these weapons & you must group them.)
Sooo, grouping weapons is optional, single weapons form batteries. And the tech and basic Traveller assumptions provide for individual weapons to be targeting independently (In HG, so long as you have a crew man per battery, apparently in BK 2 its one crew man per turret capable of firing 3 #1 batteries and the Bk2 crew rules take precedence. Gotta find my copy
)A side issue relating to mixed turrets. "mixed turrets are allowed: in such cases, each weapon is a battery". Seems pretty clear that it says each weapon is a battery. However the arguement has been put that it really means each single weapon is a battery and a pair must be grouped. A variation on the 'mistake' view, neccesitated by defining 'weapon mount' as a 'turret'.
Last of all, I'll mention our trusty fusion gun armed fighter. So far my arguement has been relating to Big Craft and it allows for example 10 #5 fusion guns in 5 turrets (go the BSG broadside
).The fighter aspect is resolved by correctly interpreting 'weapon mount', which of course means we can have 2 #5 fusion guns. The question here is in crewing. Pg 35, Small Craft, Weapons. "The pilot is assumed to be the gunner for one type of weapon on the craft." Reading this it appears our Fusion fighter does not need a gunner. However this aspect is also under contention, the written word is mistaken and the phrase is redundent as 'obviously' you cannot have 2 same type weapons forming two batteries. Again define 'weapon mount' correctly in the first sentance and one view or the other collapses.
To conclude.
Reading the opening assumption correctly is key, the confusion amongst contributors revolves around the object 'weapon mount'. Resolve this and one arguement or the other will collapse.
In support of my position I suggest the contrary view relies heavily on poor writing and poor choice of words by the author as reasons for thier view. Further examples of poor writing & poor choice of words follow in the text, due to the various ways contributors chose to engage with the object 'weapon mount' in the opening sentance.
My view is that choice of words is intended, appropriate and removes the need to assume author mistakes elsewhere. The authors intent and spirit are clear, consistent with previous publications/canon and make logical sense.
Over to you, this I think is a pretty good position & if I were present, I'd just be repeating myself. Having worked with & employed rules writers, I know the first response Marc will make is "what did I write?", the second will be "well, thats what I wrote, I can't change it now even if I wanted to."
Have fun
Matt
Yep, it really comes down to what is a 'weapon mount'. I won't respond further other than noting the rest relies on this basic assumption and this assumption is the key to the debate.Don't forget to ask Marc why he would have chosen that particular phrase over other options.
Look forward to your reply.
Cheers
Matt
While I'd like for this to be over... I can't help but notice there's a contradiction here. At #3 you allow mixed turrets to play both sides of the rule. But with the Rock... it can't.
What gives...?
No, I cut and paste from an e-mail discussion the wrong text. :nonono:
I should have put this in:
I'll go edit my original post to have it actually make sense now.
I'd like to take the opportunity to suggest a slight change in the rules while you're straightening things out, namely that beam weapons placed in the same turret must be organized in a battery, while missile launchers and sandcasters need not be. The reason for this is that in order to hit a target, a beam weapon must be aimed straight at the target, so two or three beam waepons mounted in the same turret cannot aim for different targets, whereas missile launchers don't have to be aimed straight for the target at the moment of launch. As for sandcasters, I don't really know just how they work, but I know that a turret with a mix of one laser, one missile launcher and one sandcaster is possible. Assuming the laser has to be aimed straight for its target, it follows that neither the missile nor the sandcaster operates under the same restriction.
Yes, I'm aware that this contradicts the current rules for mixed turrets, but I submit that it makes sense. Furthermore, it has the advantage that the example from the Rock becomes legal.
Hans
Huh?
You must have missed this:
Basically, this means crossing out the first two sentences of the Batteries paragraph on page 29, because (as you note) they make no sense. But even if you don't, nothing in those two sentences changes the meaning of what a mount is.
Mounts (and I mean weapon mounts, because we're not talking about drive mounts, or computer mounts, or fuel tank mounts) are considered to be: any major weapon (spinals), bay weapon, or turret.
That's what the book means, no question at all. And the clarification is that all weapons have to be grouped into batteries.
Last edited:
I used to be very confused about how sand (and other things) worked, until I started looking at Mayday very closely. Mayday provides a number of good answers and tidbits....
So, you want all beam weapons (lasers + plasma + fusion) in a mixed turret to have to be wrapped together...
Hans... you should know how the contradictions go. I'll go do some research and then see Marc.
Don't forget to ask Marc why he would have chosen that particular phrase over other options.
Look forward to your reply.
Cheers
Matt
Matt, my friend, there is no debate. It's over.
Don is the official dispenser of errata, as designated by the creator of the game, who is also it's copyright owner. He has now clarified for everyone's benefit that a turret is in fact considered a weapon mount, and that you cannot split a turret with the same weapons into two or more batteries.
It's not group think. It's over. You really fought a good battle, and you're going down with the last man! Strike the colors! Save yourself!
Again, if it works for you in your campaign, continue to do it any way you please. But in the OTU, and in any TCS tournament where the rules are the "official" version, you have your answer.
And, with Marc working on Traveller5 and other projects, I am doubtful that a lot of thought will go into reconsideration of that particular point.
Matt, my friend, there is no debate. It's over.
...snip... You really fought a good battle, and you're going down with the last man! Strike the colors! Save yourself!
Thank you Dean, tbeard, Dom & others that contributed to a very interesting discussion.
I shan't pretend I agree with Dom's view, that he read or followed my last post nor that this qualifies as errata. Dom, please next time wait till the opposing view is summarised before stating your position and giving yourself a day or so to consider both arguements at least 'appears' impartial & considered, but obviously no harm was intended. In the spirit of things I shall yield the field. To do otherwise would be tedious.
The great thing about this debate is that it crystalised, in my mind at least, why there is a differance in interpretation and for that it was well worth it.
Fun debate and by & large in a very good spirit all round - ignoring the inevitable frustration that came through on occasion!
Cheers!
Matt
Interstellar Arms Rep
"Have I got a deal for you! Twin fusion guns for your fighters, state of the art, high spec, going cheap..."
First, it's DON, not Dom, who is someone else entirely...
Second, this was not a debate, where you weigh the various arguments and render a decision over a an unclear point. This was a "here's what the rule is" statement. I think that it is extremely clear, and it would see that certainly on this board, it is also the majority view.
A point to consider is Hans request to take back to Marc the notion that for beam weapons (pulse and beam lasers, plasma and fusion guns), that all such batteries in a turret can only fire at the same target instead of different ones. Such a proposal is supported by the Book 2 rule that multiple lasers in the same turret must fire at the same target. Marc's preference is to not change any rules, but if a referee prefers that ruling, it is consistent with the intent of the Traveller rules. That's not acceptance or rejection, it's "do it if you like doing it that way".
Matt: in this case, I'm telling you that the rule as it is doesn't appear to have any room for debate. Mounts in High Guard are always weapon mounts, as there are no rules for any other mount, and a mount is always one of a major weapon (spinal), bay weapon, or turret.
The two points I do concede in the review of this discussion are: a) the whole notion that grouping weapons into batteries was "optional" is poor grammar on the part of the author (Marc says it was meant to simply clarify that ships 1000 tons and under could use mixed turrets, the Book 2 crew rules, and could be dropped into Book 2/ST/MayDay combats as is, but that is actually stated better later on), and b) the "mixed turret" rule deserved to be in its own section, clearly stated, rather than as footnote in parenthesis buried in the paragraph.
My apologies.
Fair enough, we all agree to differ.
uhhh, I'm struggling with not replying. Spinals & Bays are mounted. Turrets are emplaced (Turret rules pg 30) on hulls. Turret weapons are mounted (in turrets).
If you were going to agree with the rest of us, you'd have done it long ago.
yes, I guess so. Looked up the act of mounting on Mirriams. Its a Verb! You learn something new every day, more specifically its a 'transitive verb' but I'd have to look up 'transitive' now to follow that!http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
Mount (2)
transitive verb (action word for muppets like myself)
(6a) to attach to a support
Mount (3)
noun (naming word)
2 Frame, Support as
c(1) an undercarrage or part on which a device (as an artllery piece) rests in service
Turret
noun
3 b (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
Put it all together and you get the following
"Ships with more than one weapon mount (noun) of a type..." pg 29
"Weapons may be mounted (transitive verb) in turrets (noun) emplaced on the hull" pg 30
Note that Turrets are not defined as 'supports' & guns are 'mounted within' not 'on'.
I like, I think it was tbeards, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mount also but trimmed my post as basically it was saying the same thing. (tbeard, if it was you? - refered to a verb (action) definition earlier instead of a noun )
So IMHO 'weapon mount' (noun) was a particular choice of word with a clear meaning as a 'Frame or Support' for a weapon. This concept of relating first to a single weapon, establishing where they fit & thier limits, then flows through the rest of the rules.
Of course if you don't like the meaning of 'weapon mount' (noun), errata is needed here and elsewhere to 'fix' stuff, but thats fine & up to the individual.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary
Mount (2)
transitive verb (action word for muppets like myself)
(6a) to attach to a support
Mount (3)
noun (naming word)
2 Frame, Support as
c(1) an undercarrage or part on which a device (as an artllery piece) rests in service
Turret
noun
3 b (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
Put it all together and you get the following
"Ships with more than one weapon mount (noun) of a type..." pg 29
"Weapons may be mounted (transitive verb) in turrets (noun) emplaced on the hull" pg 30
Note that Turrets are not defined as 'supports' & guns are 'mounted within' not 'on'.
I like, I think it was tbeards, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mount also but trimmed my post as basically it was saying the same thing. (tbeard, if it was you? - refered to a verb (action) definition earlier instead of a noun )
So IMHO 'weapon mount' (noun) was a particular choice of word with a clear meaning as a 'Frame or Support' for a weapon. This concept of relating first to a single weapon, establishing where they fit & thier limits, then flows through the rest of the rules.
Of course if you don't like the meaning of 'weapon mount' (noun), errata is needed here and elsewhere to 'fix' stuff, but thats fine & up to the individual.
To preface, I am only continuing the discussion for discussion's sake. Don Moody is an agent of the copyright owner, a Traveller grognard, and is authorized by Mr. Miller to pronounce official errata, at the very least on this issue. (This is evidenced as I sent my request for errata review to Mr. Miller directly, and later on Don posted he was asked to make the ruling by Marc, so clearly this could happen no other way). Thus, his ruling is/was the final and official word on the topic, insofar as I am concerned.
So, Back to business:
It was my dictionary.com reference, although I don't trim posts, so I may be mistaken.
Note that exactly one paragraph later, it says that "turrets are installed". So don't get hung up on the word "emplaced" which simply means to put in a place.
In addition, I just carefully read the section on Weaponry and in no place do the words "weapon mount" appear ANYWHERE, in that consecutive order. It talks about installing weapons in bays and turrets, but "weapon mount" is not a term in Book 5. So since it never appears in the book (please let me know if you find an appearance), arguing that it's inclusion is confusing is confabulation, and becomes irrelevant to your case. NOR is it inconceivable for a "weapon mount" to be able to hold more than one weapon (a la the Bofors 40 mm AA gun example I cited earlier). That single mount would hold all the weapons; they'd reasonably all be part of the same unit, reasonably all be aimed and fired together, not as separate units. If that mount was in a turret, they'd reasonably all be one battery. (The point being, that once again, the mixed turret paragraph was detailing an exception to the general rule, not promulgating an option for it).
Finally, separating "mount" from "turret" is just splitting hairs. If "weapons mounts" were not part and parcel to a turret, then no weapon could be mounted there and it's simply be an armored blister. Turrets, due to their very nature, include the weapon mount(s) as an integral part of the turret, along with the slewing and elevation mechanisms, sights, gunners position, etc.
And, if you have to split hairs and find unincluded terms to support your argument, it's likely that you are on the wrong side of the discussion.
Last edited:
Please be careful interpreting everything I post from Marc (except in the T5 forum) as official.
The stuff I posted above comes under "almost official". Official would be putting it up on the FFE website errata page. Marc's official position is that there is NO errata for HG2 (ie, the strict read).
However, I think there are four (?) items where the clarifications should be given official status. On my backburner list is a "All the CT errata ever" document... and I do want to put those clarifications in that.
For example, the only ruling above that goes against a strict read is "cross out those first two lines"; however, after reading the rules, you realize that there's no option for NOT grouping weapons into batteries (even if you only have ONE weapon), unless you are using the Book2 combat rules for everything. So those first two sentences are just odd, because you could put 10 turrets as the only weapons on a 10,000 ton passenger liner, and by those two sentences, you don't have to group them into batteries, and that is just not going to work... :nonono:
Whipsnade's EXCELLENT explanation of weapon-n hits vs. damage is another clarification.
Another HG2 clarification issue is the whole Size of Ship vs. Computer Model issue. Classic arguments with L. Guatney over that one.
Tight examples would be useful, and the HG2 combat example in the file library should be read and understood by everyone.
So, while you have the designer's "looks fine" on my notes above, for CT errata, nothing is TRULY OFFICIAL unless you have a letter from GDW (the recent Missiles errata) or a sheet slipped into a box (the Striker errata), or we get it posted up on the FFE website.
And, for the sake of full disclosure, when Dean (?) contacted Marc about this thread, Marc's first response was to send me an e-mail forwarding the details with the note "What the heck is this?"... That's "Marcese" for "go look and see what's up, fix it, change it, or shoot it". Hmm... those are my words, not his. Don't want to get him in trouble.
That's why I want to get a little more formal on this, but I've got to find the time first.
So, please don't declare this "OFFICIAL". It's close, but it's still a missed hand grenade.
The stuff I posted above comes under "almost official". Official would be putting it up on the FFE website errata page. Marc's official position is that there is NO errata for HG2 (ie, the strict read).
However, I think there are four (?) items where the clarifications should be given official status. On my backburner list is a "All the CT errata ever" document... and I do want to put those clarifications in that.
For example, the only ruling above that goes against a strict read is "cross out those first two lines"; however, after reading the rules, you realize that there's no option for NOT grouping weapons into batteries (even if you only have ONE weapon), unless you are using the Book2 combat rules for everything. So those first two sentences are just odd, because you could put 10 turrets as the only weapons on a 10,000 ton passenger liner, and by those two sentences, you don't have to group them into batteries, and that is just not going to work... :nonono:
Whipsnade's EXCELLENT explanation of weapon-n hits vs. damage is another clarification.
Another HG2 clarification issue is the whole Size of Ship vs. Computer Model issue. Classic arguments with L. Guatney over that one.
Tight examples would be useful, and the HG2 combat example in the file library should be read and understood by everyone.
So, while you have the designer's "looks fine" on my notes above, for CT errata, nothing is TRULY OFFICIAL unless you have a letter from GDW (the recent Missiles errata) or a sheet slipped into a box (the Striker errata), or we get it posted up on the FFE website.
And, for the sake of full disclosure, when Dean (?) contacted Marc about this thread, Marc's first response was to send me an e-mail forwarding the details with the note "What the heck is this?"... That's "Marcese" for "go look and see what's up, fix it, change it, or shoot it". Hmm... those are my words, not his. Don't want to get him in trouble.
That's why I want to get a little more formal on this, but I've got to find the time first.
So, please don't declare this "OFFICIAL". It's close, but it's still a missed hand grenade.
Not that it helps? But I think I found an errata issue today while looking at my hard copy of High Guard.
Page 24 of High Guard (both my hard copy and the PDF copy) show that the Particle Accelerator information for the H spinal mount as being 2,500 dtons, TL 15, 500 MCr, and uses 700 energy points.
Problem is?
When you look at the entire structure, it looks as though it tends to be set at a given value for the "smaller" spinal mount for that TL, and then increments by 500 dtons in volume.
Example: TL 12 Spinal Mounts:
E: 3500 dtons
L: 4000 dtons
Q: 4500 dtons
TL 13 Spinal Mounts:
F: 3000 dtons
M: 3500 dtons
R: 4000 dtons
TL 14 spinal mounts:
G: 2500 dtons
N: 3000 dtons
S: 3500 dtons
TL 15 Spinal Mounts: (which does NOT follow the pattern)
H: 2500 dtons
P: 2500 dtons
T: 3000 dtons
Note that the pattern is:
Smallest Spinal Mount starts at X at a given TL
Smallest Spinal Mount starts at X-500 dtons at the next highest TL
Note too, that when going from smallest Spinal Mount at a given TL, it goes from smallest, to next larger, which is equal to smallest+500 dtons, to largest at Smallest+1,000 dtons.
I'm betting, that the H spinal mount is actually supposed to be 2,000 dtons, because it is 500 dtons smaller than the one preceding smallest Spinal Mount, and 1,000 dtons smaller than the largest spinal mount of TL 15's spinal mount.
Perhaps this has been pointed out before and I'm just lagging behind the times, or rediscovering something I figured out years ago but didn't say anything because the internet didn't exist back then
Edit: As luck would have it, it is hard coded into High Guard Shipyard as well. Sheesh.
Page 24 of High Guard (both my hard copy and the PDF copy) show that the Particle Accelerator information for the H spinal mount as being 2,500 dtons, TL 15, 500 MCr, and uses 700 energy points.
Problem is?
When you look at the entire structure, it looks as though it tends to be set at a given value for the "smaller" spinal mount for that TL, and then increments by 500 dtons in volume.
Example: TL 12 Spinal Mounts:
E: 3500 dtons
L: 4000 dtons
Q: 4500 dtons
TL 13 Spinal Mounts:
F: 3000 dtons
M: 3500 dtons
R: 4000 dtons
TL 14 spinal mounts:
G: 2500 dtons
N: 3000 dtons
S: 3500 dtons
TL 15 Spinal Mounts: (which does NOT follow the pattern)
H: 2500 dtons
P: 2500 dtons
T: 3000 dtons
Note that the pattern is:
Smallest Spinal Mount starts at X at a given TL
Smallest Spinal Mount starts at X-500 dtons at the next highest TL
Note too, that when going from smallest Spinal Mount at a given TL, it goes from smallest, to next larger, which is equal to smallest+500 dtons, to largest at Smallest+1,000 dtons.
I'm betting, that the H spinal mount is actually supposed to be 2,000 dtons, because it is 500 dtons smaller than the one preceding smallest Spinal Mount, and 1,000 dtons smaller than the largest spinal mount of TL 15's spinal mount.
Perhaps this has been pointed out before and I'm just lagging behind the times, or rediscovering something I figured out years ago but didn't say anything because the internet didn't exist back then
Edit: As luck would have it, it is hard coded into High Guard Shipyard as well. Sheesh.
Last edited:
I see the pattern, but I'm not rushing to change it, because MegaTraveller kept the hardpoints at 25, and there are NO PA spinals under that until TL 17 in MT. So, in light of no other supporting evidence, I don't think this would be errata.
Let's not turn this into a HG errata thread; if you want to do that, open a new thread.
