Can turrets be mounted on ship frames that do not explicitly possess them? Secondarily, can additional turrets be mounted?
Normally, I would probably say no by default, but looking over how the rules are written in this and other situations, it's actually fairly ambiguous.
What the rules on page 305 do state is that you can add additional weapon mounts to a ship within a limit set by their size - no more than two mounts per arc for a tiny or small ship, for instance. They also state that for a slightly higher price, you can add weapon mounts to a turret that still has room, following the same size-based limit as the other arcs - again, no more than two on a turret for a tiny or small ship. What the rules do not mention is adding a turret if a ship does not already have one.
But they do specifically mention that a ship frame can have no more than x weapons per arc (or per turret). And in the case of tiny and small ships, there isn't a frame given that has a turret to begin with. Now, this may just be future-proofing the ruleset a little, to make it clear that when and if they release base frames in that size range that do have turrets, that it still applies, but Dead Suns has further muddied the issue.
To me, that indicates that weapon mounts can be added to a turret that the ship does not explicitly possess, and in doing so add said turret to the ship. Or perhaps, alternatively, that every ship mechanically has a "turret" that can accept mounts, but not every ship actually has mounts in that "turret." By extension, that not every ship even physically has the turret they mechanically possess, up until a weapon mount is added to it.
In either case, the rules aren't clear. I think this is an area where they would normally permit or deny something explicitly, but it appears that they do neither.
|
None of the ships listed for the Pack World has more than 1 turret.
I think the ship in your spoiler is intended for that scenario.
The devs have already said that stats for NPCs don't follow the same rules that PCs must follow so it is not surprising that they may also "break" some of the rules in starship design.
I'm fairly certain you can add a turret mount. The wording is very strange, but the gist of it is *I think* that 'turret' is simply a special arc to which mounts can be added.
Here's the weird sentence: "By spending 5 BP, the crew can fit a new light weapon mount on a turret that has enough free space" (p. 305, second sentence, last paragraph of New Weapon Mounts). It sounds like they mean you can have two weapon mounts (and two weapons) on a single physical turret, but I think the implication is that 'a turret' refers to the arc, not an actual turret mount.
Take a look at the Transport's list of mounts (p. 295). It describes an arc, and then the weapons in that arc. There are two 'forward arc', and two 'turret'. I don't think we are supposed to assume those are on the same turret. Now look at Carrier, Battleship and Dreadnought (p. 296). They have lots of weapons listed in 'turret'. Are we to assume despite these ships size and crews, they have only one turret?
Furthermore, there are rules specifically designed for linking weapons (p. 301) and no suggestion that that's already happened in some of the ships, or that it is required if they are in the same arc, or within the same set of 'turret' parentheses'.
It seems pretty clear to me that, while the key sentence is oddly formed, that one isn't meant to infer that there is a special meaning to 'a turret' beyond the turret arc, and that you can add turret-mounted weapons to a ship without turrets as easily as you can add side arc mounts to a ship without side weapons.
|
I'm fairly certain you can add a turret mount. The wording is very strange, but the gist of it is *I think* that 'turret' is simply a special arc to which mounts can be added.
Here's the weird sentence: "By spending 5 BP, the crew can fit a new light weapon mount on a turret that has enough free space" (p. 305, second sentence, last paragraph of New Weapon Mounts). It sounds like they mean you can have two weapon mounts (and two weapons) on a single physical turret, but I think the implication is that 'a turret' refers to the arc, not an actual turret mount.
Take a look at the Transport's list of mounts (p. 295). It describes an arc, and then the weapons in that arc. There are two 'forward arc', and two 'turret'. I don't think we are supposed to assume those are on the same turret. Now look at Carrier, Battleship and Dreadnought (p. 296). They have lots of weapons listed in 'turret'. Are we to assume despite these ships size and crews, they have only one turret?
Furthermore, there are rules specifically designed for linking weapons (p. 301) and no suggestion that that's already happened in some of the ships, or that it is required if they are in the same arc, or within the same set of 'turret' parentheses'.
It seems pretty clear to me that, while the key sentence is oddly formed, that one isn't meant to infer that there is a special meaning to 'a turret' beyond the turret arc, and that you can add turret-mounted weapons to a ship without turrets as easily as you can add side arc mounts to a ship without side weapons.
I think the rules assume one turret with multiple mounts. If you look at the last section "Tiny and Small starships can have only two weapon mounts per arc (and per turret). Medium and Large starships can have only three weapon mounts per arc (and per turret). Huge and larger starships can have only four weapon mounts per arc (and per turret)." it seems to indicate that it considers one turret with multiple mounts. Turrets are a mount that have a 360 degree arc, so whether you have four single weapon turrets or one-four weapon turret, it shouldn't make much difference as long as you don't exceed the turret arc maximum per ship size.
|
|
So I had really long response but after reading more carefully, I agree with what Kitsch Zero is saying and what Tharkune is saying.
Arcs and mounts refer to the same thing. What direction they are facing.
An upgraded Transport can have up to 3 weapon mounts per arc; forward, port, starboard, aft, 360 degree. The 360 degree, or turret arc, could have 3 weapons mounted. This could be 1, 2, or 3 turret mount(s).
For two weapons to be linked, they have to be the same and in the same mount.
|
If i have 2 direct-fire weapons in the turret, can be linked?
and what mean same direct-fire weapon?
Do they have to be the same weapon? (f.e. 2 gyrolaser)
Do they have to be the same type weapon? i mean with type, two Light weapon, f.e a gyrolaser and coilgun.
can they be different types? i mean with type Light weapon and heavy weapon, f.e a gyrolaser and Heavy Laser Cannon.
If you install two of the same direct-fire weapon in the same firing
arc, you can link them together so they fire as one. This costs a
number of Build Points equal to half the cost of one of the weapons
(rounded down) and consumes a negligible amount of PCU
Copied from my PDF. Page 301 of core rule book.
With the 2 of the same direct fire weapon, to me its 2 Gyrolaser, or 2 Heavy laser cannon, not one of each
Yes. Nothing stops turret-mounted weapons from being linked, as long as they are both turret-mounted, are direct fire, and are identical weapons.
But they do specifically mention that a ship frame can have no more than x weapons per arc (or per turret). And in the case of tiny and small ships, there isn't a frame given that has a turret to begin with. Now, this may just be future-proofing the ruleset a little, to make it clear that when and if they release base frames in that size range that do have turrets, that it still applies, but Dead Suns has further muddied the issue.
By this point, I hope that it is clear that you can add turret mounts. In relation to the specific example you gave, that was not a generic Small frame ship, that was a shuttle, proving that turrets can be added.
There really should be a hard statement about the maximum number of turrets that a given frame size can have, as there currently is not. Hopefully there will be a FAQ to address this at some point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems pretty clear that the maximum number of weapon mounts given "per arc and per turret" for each ship size is your total number of turret mounts. Not your number of mounts that is then multiplied by an unspecified number of turrets.
While I can see that interpretation of the rules, it doesn't actually make much sense from the perspective of warships, especially capital ships. Consider both historical and contemporary cruisers and battleships, and the image of an Imperial Star Destroyer, which have as many (fully loaded) turrets as they can cram in around the essential ship stuff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I can see that interpretation of the rules, it doesn't actually make much sense from the perspective of warships, especially capital ships. Consider both historical and contemporary cruisers and battleships, and the image of an Imperial Star Destroyer, which have as many (fully loaded) turrets as they can cram in around the essential ship stuff.
And then consider the gameplay problems that would create. Especially on a ship with a lot of crew and a lot of gunners available. A better way to simulate such a starship would be to use SOM's weapon upgrade to give weapons in the arcs or turrets the array property so they can target many numerous opponents, simulating the large ship having multitudes of weapons over the two to four big guns the rules state they do.
According to all published ships I can find, the 'turret' is treated it's own special arc, and the limit of number of weapons in the turret is, iirc, always the same as the base frame's limit for number of weapons in it's arcs.
Each of those weapons can be in a different 'turret' that can shoot in different arcs at the same time with multiple gunners, but there's a limit to how many weapons can be in the 'turret arc'.
It's perhaps unfortunate word choice, but there is no way the rules are intended to let you install 12 different particle cannons in four different turrets on your medium explorer.
It's perhaps unfortunate word choice, but there is no way the rules are intended to let you install 12 different particle cannons in four different turrets on your medium explorer.
I agree with your interpretation of RAW (which I would have thought my previous statements would have covered), but even in my earlier comments and queries was about how many turrets were allowed by size/frame. Certainly it is ridiculous to think of an Explorer with 4 turrets, but let us consider one of the most popular Light Freighter/Explorer (arguments can be made both ways) ships of sci-fi lore, the Millennium Falcon; it has two turrets, a dorsal and ventral. I can't see how one could reasonably cram a turret into a fighter sized craft, small craft should probably only have one, medium, as suggested above, might have two. Where much of my question is oriented is with regard to capital ships, which tend to be so BP intensive as to be highly impractical for a party, and thus would tend to be the province of military organizations or mega-corporations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's perhaps unfortunate word choice, but there is no way the rules are intended to let you install 12 different particle cannons in four different turrets on your medium explorer.I agree with your interpretation of RAW (which I would have thought my previous statements would have covered), but even in my earlier comments and queries was about how many turrets were allowed by size/frame. Certainly it is ridiculous to think of an Explorer with 4 turrets, but let us consider one of the most popular Light Freighter/Explorer (arguments can be made both ways) ships of sci-fi lore, the Millennium Falcon; it has two turrets, a dorsal and ventral. I can't see how one could reasonably cram a turret into a fighter sized craft, small craft should probably only have one, medium, as suggested above, might have two. Where much of my question is oriented is with regard to capital ships, which tend to be so BP intensive as to be highly impractical for a party, and thus would tend to be the province of military organizations or mega-corporations.
The millenium falcon is probably a shuttle sized craft. It has two 'turrets' but it only has space for two quad lasers in it's 'turret arc'. Which checks out nicely with the limitations of weapons per arc for a small sized craft. Quad lasers aren't a starfinder weapon, but equivalents can be found.
Capital ships in a similar vein, can have many 'turrets' as long as they only end up with four 'weapons' in the turret arc. Those four could be dozens of 'turrets' represented by, say, a heavy laser array, or a magic torpedo unit with the array upgrade, or anything similar. There are many guns, but the ship can't focus fire thirty gunners on masers against a single target. If they did, any potential PC ship would disintegrate against any given capital ship.
Gameplay reasons mean those thirty+ guns can't all be shot at a single target in one round. To simulate a big ship still having many guns at the same time, you add the array property allowing it to shoot at many targets at the same time.
Yeah, logic and media show Big reared ships with lots of turrets. Great for stories, war and visuals. That mass of weapons (with the crew to fire them) would make the ships too powerful for a game where the PC's are meant to be your Skywalkers and Solos, without the backup.
Game terms that ship would wipe out the PC ship before in the first turn. The Star Destroyer has over 60 guns, and nearly 40K crew. enough to fire each one comfortably. Game terms, that is just a wall of death.
In game terms, ships like that would be well out of the PCs BP price range. Capital ships are stupidly expensive to build RAW as is. Start strapping military hardware on every available surface, and there is no way that PCs would be able to afford such a craft, or if they could, they'd be sacrificing other things, likely making their ship a glass cannon that could be taken down with distressing ease.
The question I was posing was more pointing out a flavor thing for the setting; actual 'ships of the wall' as it were would be strictly the province of governments, and possibly very large organizations, as no one else could reasonably afford them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In game terms, ships like that would be well out of the PCs BP price range. Capital ships are stupidly expensive to build RAW as is. Start strapping military hardware on every available surface, and there is no way that PCs would be able to afford such a craft, or if they could, they'd be sacrificing other things, likely making their ship a glass cannon that could be taken down with distressing ease.
The question I was posing was more pointing out a flavor thing for the setting; actual 'ships of the wall' as it were would be strictly the province of governments, and possibly very large organizations, as no one else could reasonably afford them.
Except, that as the game is written right now, PCs can and do run into those ships with their smaller ships. They are expected to at least survive those fights, and not disintegrate under the fire of sixty different gunners all shooting at once.
So, to prevent PC ships simply exploding vs a classic sci-fi dreadnought, even the five mile long tier 20 ultranought still only has four spaces in it's arcs for guns. (and four spaces for guns in the 'turret')
Is that ship still covered with hundreds of guns?
Yes, in the lore/art/etc.
No, in the mechanics.