A starship is considered a warship if it meets two or more of the following criteria:
The starship is owned and/or operated by a military or paramilitary organization
The starship is primarily designed for combat
The starship has:
More than 4 weapons or offensive systems rated SDR 3/Tier 11 or above.
More than 2 weapons or offensive systems rated SDR 4/Tier 12 or above.
A SDR 5/Tier 13+ weapon.
A “main gun” that takes up a significant portion of the starship.
This is not a warship.
To build on that, this is a military ship the same way any landing ship, armored recovery vehicle, or carrier would be a military ship.
The question is do these kinds of ships count as civilian ships for reasons of the 'need a civilian ship' rule.
Firstly: There are other VTOL-type freighters that can accomplish the exact same thing the Terrene does.
War is implied in the name and it is fielded by the Nepleslian Space Marine Corps.
For the second point, the word armor comes up 17 times in the article. Civilian ships are not armored to the extent that the Terrene Assault Transport is. I believe that this qualifies it as being designed for war. Not to mention it has a armory, for "power armor storage and gun mounts"
Starliners do not have weapons or armor.
The Terrene also has armor, but it protect its spine and belly (which even the belly isn't fully protected). Its shields are marginally weaker, but this armor design is specific: it's to help protect the ship IF IT CRASHES!
That's a new one. The words "Crash" or "Accident" are mentioned exactly zero times in the article.
The question is do these kinds of ships count as civilian ships for reasons of the 'need a civilian ship' rule.
Edit: Also? The "armor" appearing 17 times? 2 times are as titles, 4 times are as discussing its armoury, 1 loose time is describing power ARMOR, 2 times are in the TOC, and another is for GROUND ARMOR, such as tanks. Math for you?
10 of those times have no relation to the armor of the ship.
This whole thing about its "wording" and "intent" is absurd. The "intent" you view isn't what it is. It survives. If there are more instances that are triggering people into thinking it's aggressive, then please cite more sections and I will change it.Give n the rest of the article, it still comes off as rather militaristic Legix. If you had it say something more like, "endure blows from pirates and raiders" for an example, and use that sort of defensive language throughout consistently, the article would be much better off.
It has point-defense turrets that are T9. That is essentially a Heavy Tank cannon. And those are intended to be guns to protect the ship. Logically, it could assault/kill ground armor that threatens it (because it is at most danger to attacks from directly below, where it has a gap in its armor to allow proper landing).
It kills tanks too? Why would a merchant fight a tank?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?