Hello Folks,
This thread/topic is a sub-thread from another. Quoted below is the point that was made and the implications therein were something that leaped out at me the moment I read the rule on the second edition of MgT's HIGH GUARD.
This is not, repeat NOT a dig at AnotherDilbert - but a function of a set of implications that struck me when I read the following rule on page 23:
"A Firmpoint on a small craft is a fixed mount (typically forward-facing, but there is no requirement for this), but can be upgraded to a single (not double or triple) turret."
What meanings from that rule can be derived? First, weapons mounted on firmpoints tend to be fixed mount. Fixed mounts as you can determine elsewhere, suffer from the limitation that they can be fired into one arc at a given target. All other potential targets outside that arc are not permited to be fired upon. Second, based on the rest of the information regarding firmpoints - the weapons themselves are lesser versions than their hardpoint counterparts. But the second part of that one sentence tells us we're permitted to exchange a firmpoint for a turret.
Ok, fair enough. But then the question became one of "what is the difference between a single weapon hardpoint turret and a single weapon firmpoint turret?" That was followed by the next question "Once you replace a firmpoint with a turret, does any weapon mounted in that turret negate the firmpoint weapon limitation of less range and magazine capacity?"
Let's look at those two questions: If there had been reference to Firmpoint turrets as an entity distinctly different than hardpoint turrets, I didn't find it (if it is there, please feel free to point it out!). That then implies that in theory, there is no difference between a turret mounted weapon in a turret regardless of how that turret got situated on the hull (ie firmpoint conversion or an actual hardpoint). Why? Because the volume of a single weapon turret remains the same whether used on a firmpoint or a hardpoint. They still cost the same, they still take up 1 dTon of internal volume, and more importantly, they still require the same energy to operate. I can almost hear someone point out that firmpoints only require 75% of the energy of their hardpoint cousins - but the strict reading of that rule is that only the WEAPONS gain that discount, not the turret itself.
Now for the second question - should firmpoint conversions - permit normal weapons within the turret - seeing as the volume constraints of the turret are non-existent. The answer to that question has to take into account two things: A) weapons that are the same size etc are not going to differ in any other respect, consequently, they should have the same characteristics and B) it cannot violate the original premise laid out regarding Hardpoints:
That being...
"There are only so many weapons that can be attached to a ship, the limiting factors being the supply of energy, the stresses imposed upon the hull through the use of high-powered weaponry, and the surface area of a hull it is possible to cover with weapons."
Turrets by their nature, occupy real-estate from the category of not just volume itself, but also surface area. Full powered weapons impose stress. If a 100 dton hull can not permit more than one hardpoint's worth of weapons as a result of the quote immediately above, then a hull less than 100 Dtons can not withstand 3x the stress that the 100 dton hull cannot.
I can almost expect someone to say "But hey! These are smaller turrets housing smaller weapons!" It would seem however, that the counter to that thought is "It doesn't matter if the weapon turret system holds one weapon or three weapons, MgT High Guard treats them the same." In other words, you can't have three single turrets equal one Triple turret. You can't subdivide a single hard point such that you can have three single weapon turrets. It has to be either a Single Weapon turret, a Double Weapon Turret, or a Triple Weapon Turret.
Now, any time you have a subset of rules that permit a violation of the first primary rule, you have to ask yourself "Is this legal" or "is this what the authors intended"
Was it intended to permit a small craft to have more Volume allocated to turrets than ships that adhere to the Hardpoint rules?
Proof that the conversion of 1 firmpoint to 1 turret without limit does violate the rule is this:
When you have a hardpoint based ship, it can only have 1 turret per hardpoint. Thus, for a single 100 dTon hull, you are only permitted to allocate 1 dTon of volume for turrets.
A small craft converting three firmpoints to turrets now can allocate three dTons to turret space. That violates the basic rules for Hardpoints.
If a small craft can convert 2 firmpoints into one barbette, and one firmpoint into a turret, it can allocate a total of 6 dTons of volume for turrets versus the 5 dTons that is permitted for the same approach (ie a barbette rather than normal turret).
Last but not least: A single small craft with 1 turret, can also mount two firmpoints. This contradicts what a single Hardpoint based ship is limited to.
This is why, had this been a playtest - I would have recommended that if you convert ANY of your firmpoints to a turret, they must ALL be converted to a turret, not just one - and that small craft under 100 dtons are not permitted to have Barbettes. As best as I can figure, a turret's only purpose is to change a fixed arc capacity to a 360 degree arc functionality.
Note - this "implication" aspect is just that - exploring all of the issues that can arise when you take into account the issues involving surrounding a specific subset of rules.
1) are converted weapons normally intended for firmpoints now turret based weapons? Implication answer: No. They still remain firmpoint weapons. To do otherwise violates the original premise that limits how many hardpoints a ship may have.
2) are converted turrets any different than regular turrets? Implied answer: No.
3) Can you have three converted turrets? Implied answer: No, since you can't have three turrets per 100 dtons with respect to hardpoints, converted turrets being the same as hardpoint turrets means that by having three converted turrets, you are in violation of the Hardpoint limits.
Your mileage may vary, but by outlining the WHY of my thoughts, you can at least see where I'm coming from, and make your own decisions accordingly. When something is not explicitly spelled out, sometimes you have to use deductive reasoning. When one follows a train of implications and finds internal inconsistencies - well, the issue becomes one of "Hey, if you had just left it alone, you could use the rules as written and be done with it - serves you right for pondering it!" Me? When I spot such an inconsistency, I tend to try to fix it (aka house rules). I don't demand that you do the same.
Why did I post this? Largely because I invite you to go through this and say "hey Hal, you missed this on page 93" Then I can say "oops, you're right, thank you for pointing it out!" I can revise my original train of thought and resolve what I see as inconsistencies and move on.
Incidentally? Having two extra turrets by means of the conversion rule permits small craft a little extra survivability. If you only have one turret, and suffer two turret hits, that's "Free damage" that doesn't affect the hull. If you have two turrets, you have a 1 in two chance of hitting a given turret with a turret hit. So, the first turret hit is essentially normal. The second turret hit however, has a 50/50 chance of hitting the same turret, or hitting a different turret. If it hits a different turret, you have just gained the following: You have turrets still able to fire after two turret hits. You also will lose a turret on the next turret hit. Potentially speaking, you only have a 50/50 chance that a fourth turret hit will hit Hull or it will hit and destroy your second turret. Either way? After three hits, you potentially saved yourself from having to take a hull hit. With only ONE turret, you would have automatically taken a hull hit from a turret hit. Having three turrets just makes that process all the more advantageous for the small craft in question.
This thread/topic is a sub-thread from another. Quoted below is the point that was made and the implications therein were something that leaped out at me the moment I read the rule on the second edition of MgT's HIGH GUARD.
AnotherDilbert said:
This is not, repeat NOT a dig at AnotherDilbert - but a function of a set of implications that struck me when I read the following rule on page 23:
"A Firmpoint on a small craft is a fixed mount (typically forward-facing, but there is no requirement for this), but can be upgraded to a single (not double or triple) turret."
What meanings from that rule can be derived? First, weapons mounted on firmpoints tend to be fixed mount. Fixed mounts as you can determine elsewhere, suffer from the limitation that they can be fired into one arc at a given target. All other potential targets outside that arc are not permited to be fired upon. Second, based on the rest of the information regarding firmpoints - the weapons themselves are lesser versions than their hardpoint counterparts. But the second part of that one sentence tells us we're permitted to exchange a firmpoint for a turret.
Ok, fair enough. But then the question became one of "what is the difference between a single weapon hardpoint turret and a single weapon firmpoint turret?" That was followed by the next question "Once you replace a firmpoint with a turret, does any weapon mounted in that turret negate the firmpoint weapon limitation of less range and magazine capacity?"
Let's look at those two questions: If there had been reference to Firmpoint turrets as an entity distinctly different than hardpoint turrets, I didn't find it (if it is there, please feel free to point it out!). That then implies that in theory, there is no difference between a turret mounted weapon in a turret regardless of how that turret got situated on the hull (ie firmpoint conversion or an actual hardpoint). Why? Because the volume of a single weapon turret remains the same whether used on a firmpoint or a hardpoint. They still cost the same, they still take up 1 dTon of internal volume, and more importantly, they still require the same energy to operate. I can almost hear someone point out that firmpoints only require 75% of the energy of their hardpoint cousins - but the strict reading of that rule is that only the WEAPONS gain that discount, not the turret itself.
Now for the second question - should firmpoint conversions - permit normal weapons within the turret - seeing as the volume constraints of the turret are non-existent. The answer to that question has to take into account two things: A) weapons that are the same size etc are not going to differ in any other respect, consequently, they should have the same characteristics and B) it cannot violate the original premise laid out regarding Hardpoints:
That being...
"There are only so many weapons that can be attached to a ship, the limiting factors being the supply of energy, the stresses imposed upon the hull through the use of high-powered weaponry, and the surface area of a hull it is possible to cover with weapons."
Turrets by their nature, occupy real-estate from the category of not just volume itself, but also surface area. Full powered weapons impose stress. If a 100 dton hull can not permit more than one hardpoint's worth of weapons as a result of the quote immediately above, then a hull less than 100 Dtons can not withstand 3x the stress that the 100 dton hull cannot.
I can almost expect someone to say "But hey! These are smaller turrets housing smaller weapons!" It would seem however, that the counter to that thought is "It doesn't matter if the weapon turret system holds one weapon or three weapons, MgT High Guard treats them the same." In other words, you can't have three single turrets equal one Triple turret. You can't subdivide a single hard point such that you can have three single weapon turrets. It has to be either a Single Weapon turret, a Double Weapon Turret, or a Triple Weapon Turret.
Now, any time you have a subset of rules that permit a violation of the first primary rule, you have to ask yourself "Is this legal" or "is this what the authors intended"
Was it intended to permit a small craft to have more Volume allocated to turrets than ships that adhere to the Hardpoint rules?
Proof that the conversion of 1 firmpoint to 1 turret without limit does violate the rule is this:
When you have a hardpoint based ship, it can only have 1 turret per hardpoint. Thus, for a single 100 dTon hull, you are only permitted to allocate 1 dTon of volume for turrets.
A small craft converting three firmpoints to turrets now can allocate three dTons to turret space. That violates the basic rules for Hardpoints.
If a small craft can convert 2 firmpoints into one barbette, and one firmpoint into a turret, it can allocate a total of 6 dTons of volume for turrets versus the 5 dTons that is permitted for the same approach (ie a barbette rather than normal turret).
Last but not least: A single small craft with 1 turret, can also mount two firmpoints. This contradicts what a single Hardpoint based ship is limited to.
This is why, had this been a playtest - I would have recommended that if you convert ANY of your firmpoints to a turret, they must ALL be converted to a turret, not just one - and that small craft under 100 dtons are not permitted to have Barbettes. As best as I can figure, a turret's only purpose is to change a fixed arc capacity to a 360 degree arc functionality.
Note - this "implication" aspect is just that - exploring all of the issues that can arise when you take into account the issues involving surrounding a specific subset of rules.
1) are converted weapons normally intended for firmpoints now turret based weapons? Implication answer: No. They still remain firmpoint weapons. To do otherwise violates the original premise that limits how many hardpoints a ship may have.
2) are converted turrets any different than regular turrets? Implied answer: No.
3) Can you have three converted turrets? Implied answer: No, since you can't have three turrets per 100 dtons with respect to hardpoints, converted turrets being the same as hardpoint turrets means that by having three converted turrets, you are in violation of the Hardpoint limits.
Your mileage may vary, but by outlining the WHY of my thoughts, you can at least see where I'm coming from, and make your own decisions accordingly. When something is not explicitly spelled out, sometimes you have to use deductive reasoning. When one follows a train of implications and finds internal inconsistencies - well, the issue becomes one of "Hey, if you had just left it alone, you could use the rules as written and be done with it - serves you right for pondering it!" Me? When I spot such an inconsistency, I tend to try to fix it (aka house rules). I don't demand that you do the same.
Why did I post this? Largely because I invite you to go through this and say "hey Hal, you missed this on page 93" Then I can say "oops, you're right, thank you for pointing it out!" I can revise my original train of thought and resolve what I see as inconsistencies and move on.
Incidentally? Having two extra turrets by means of the conversion rule permits small craft a little extra survivability. If you only have one turret, and suffer two turret hits, that's "Free damage" that doesn't affect the hull. If you have two turrets, you have a 1 in two chance of hitting a given turret with a turret hit. So, the first turret hit is essentially normal. The second turret hit however, has a 50/50 chance of hitting the same turret, or hitting a different turret. If it hits a different turret, you have just gained the following: You have turrets still able to fire after two turret hits. You also will lose a turret on the next turret hit. Potentially speaking, you only have a 50/50 chance that a fourth turret hit will hit Hull or it will hit and destroy your second turret. Either way? After three hits, you potentially saved yourself from having to take a hull hit. With only ONE turret, you would have automatically taken a hull hit from a turret hit. Having three turrets just makes that process all the more advantageous for the small craft in question.
