Iain McGhee
Mongoose
Da Boss said:
That's something that just changed today, going by the ADB board (actually, there's a request over there from SVC for you to get in touch).
A Call to Arms Journal - Issue 1
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
That's something that just changed today, going by the ADB board (actually, there's a request over there from SVC for you to get in touch).
As Steve explained over on the BBS, there is a difference in corporate culture at play here. It's one of the pitfalls of communication as well. 
It is always difficult to know when a word has different meanings to people.
When I visited Texas the first time, Steve and Leanna kept pointing to mesquite trees. I was looking far too high and didn't pay any attention to the overgrown bushes. Little did I know they *were* the trees.
Please bear with us as we continue to shake out the unexpected differences in how we work. We want this to be a success and we want you to be happy and enjoy the game. I think we're making steady progress and we appreciate your patience as we work things out.
Jean
It is always difficult to know when a word has different meanings to people.When I visited Texas the first time, Steve and Leanna kept pointing to mesquite trees. I was looking far too high and didn't pay any attention to the overgrown bushes. Little did I know they *were* the trees.
Please bear with us as we continue to shake out the unexpected differences in how we work. We want this to be a success and we want you to be happy and enjoy the game. I think we're making steady progress and we appreciate your patience as we work things out.
Jean
Jean said:As Steve explained over on the BBS, there is a difference in corporate culture at play here. It's one of the pitfalls of communication as well.
Jean
And a really good explanation it was. I found it fascinating as an illustration of the same goal but two very different processes.
Asguard101
Mongoose
msprange said:
Does this mean the Scout rules will be changing, or is it safe to assume the rules in the Journal are valid?
Asguard101 said:
They are valid - there will be some tweaks on the language for clarification, but no huge changes. This will be done within the next week or so, and anyone who has downloaded the Journal will get a free update.
Asguard101
Mongoose
Can the Scout's Counter-Jamming be used to counter Counter-Drone?
AdmiralGrafSpee
Mongoose
The Gorn CLS with a Scout of 4 is really really good at just shutting down drones. Its easy to fit this ship into a 1000pt fleet where it could easily but taking care of 60% plus of the enemy drones all by itself.
Since I doubt there would ever be a limit on how many "scout points" you could take in a game, would it be possible to revisit this ship and make sure its Scout rating is appropriate and adequately reflected in its points?
-Tim
Since I doubt there would ever be a limit on how many "scout points" you could take in a game, would it be possible to revisit this ship and make sure its Scout rating is appropriate and adequately reflected in its points?
-Tim
Its got 4 special sensors in SFB plus a bucket of power to use them as the four power hungry plasma torps are not there.
Part of the issue, and this is going to sound like a broken record here, is that in the core SFU universe there was only one of these, and its costly to make one in F&E so even if you did convert more there's only so many you would so especially as with Gorn you are losing a BC conversion from memory.
However none of that strategic level feeds down to ACtA.....and unless Battle Groups introduces a fleet structure of some kind then there will be ships of this kind that synergise well. The problem with synergy is its well impossible to factor into points systems - the best you can do is handle it at an expected use level. These will be found in a free fleet build game and while I acknowledge the issue, I cannot solve it, so have to live with it.
One on one this ship will die horribly, in a fleet action scouts have to be protected or be prime targets. Buy too many of these and you lose the plasma you need to kill with. The answer here for the Kzinti would be batter it with disruptors - or bring back the old jamming rule which allows you to shut down an enemy scout (perhaps on a scout value for scout value option) - that lets you limit the scout at least.
Part of the issue, and this is going to sound like a broken record here, is that in the core SFU universe there was only one of these, and its costly to make one in F&E so even if you did convert more there's only so many you would so especially as with Gorn you are losing a BC conversion from memory.
However none of that strategic level feeds down to ACtA.....and unless Battle Groups introduces a fleet structure of some kind then there will be ships of this kind that synergise well. The problem with synergy is its well impossible to factor into points systems - the best you can do is handle it at an expected use level. These will be found in a free fleet build game and while I acknowledge the issue, I cannot solve it, so have to live with it.
One on one this ship will die horribly, in a fleet action scouts have to be protected or be prime targets. Buy too many of these and you lose the plasma you need to kill with. The answer here for the Kzinti would be batter it with disruptors - or bring back the old jamming rule which allows you to shut down an enemy scout (perhaps on a scout value for scout value option) - that lets you limit the scout at least.
Myrm said:
In F&E it is a 4pt major conversion to convert an existing CL to CLS. You can substitute a CLS for a HD hull once per turn, and it then costs 12eps (a standard CL is 8, and a HD is 5).
So it's nothing really to crank out a few extra CLS. I wouldn't go nutso converting them personally, as it's not cheap exactly, but they do pretty well against the pitiful Rom early scouts.
As for dealing with enemy scouts, target them with lots of long-range weapons and damage them asap.
AdmiralGrafSpee
Mongoose
I'm not disagreeing with you guys, I just think it should have a cost to represent its effectiveness in ACTA. I think Mongoose has done a fantastic job of modeling the weapons and defenses of the SFB ships to date, so the straight port over of point costs is appropriate. Not entirely sure the cost to stop 16 drones a turn is built into those 160pts. If "counter-counter-drone" becomes a scout feature, then that would change things.
-Tim
-Tim
The current proposal is that counter-drone only stops 1d6, not the whole launch automatically and since it is declared in defensive fire it raises interesting options in that do you stop a 2 drone wave cold or hold fire and wait on one of the bigger ships to fire?AdmiralGrafSpee said:
AdmiralGrafSpee said:
The problem here is that the power of the scout trait actions is too high compared to the SFU equivalent, which in turn means basing the points off SFU sources will underscore.
I would rather get the scout actions matching reasonably well before point fiddling - the first is easier to do, and if it brings the points back in line with the actions is a simpler fix....as I said in another thread I'd aim at 2AD of drones countered per Trait point/action....
I think Myrm is on the right track here.
Lets play with the scouts / rules as they are written for abit and see what results we get.
ACTASF: Battle Squadrons will be the perfect vehicle for releasing a final set of corrected rules / point values for scouts. And its far enough out to make sure any errors are corrected before it sees print.
Lets play with the scouts / rules as they are written for abit and see what results we get.
ACTASF: Battle Squadrons will be the perfect vehicle for releasing a final set of corrected rules / point values for scouts. And its far enough out to make sure any errors are corrected before it sees print.
Lawdog1700
Mongoose
So, I got ACTA Journal #1 and I was excited to see the ACTA version of the scout rules included. Scouts (specifically, electronic intelligence gathering assets, but in Star Fleet those are called "scouts")are a vital part of fleet actions in SFB. I am a long time SFB player and I know first hand the importance of scout channels in defending a fleet.
Oh, I am not a Kzinti player. Anyway...
However, one of the crucial elements of the scout "metagame" is that scouts have the capabilities to negate each other's actions. In SFB the Gorn scout is highly effective, given the amount of power it has compared to other scouts and so the Scout 4 rating it has makes sense to me.
But the Scout rules pose a major problem.
Drones have been effectively rendered useless within the game. A vessel with Scout 3 can suppress approximately 60% of the drone-throw capability of most 1000 point Kzinti fleets. Anyone facing the Kzinti (or the Klingons, to a lesser degree) can negate their drone capabilities with the addition of 2 scouts to their fleet. It can be argued that in the latter phases of the game, drones may once again play a part (after all scouts are dead...possibly) but that eliminates the strategy (and fun) involved in devising ways to counter a serious drone threat. It also transforms the Kzinti into a "junior Klingon" race with disruptors, but without the "shield rule" and with less phasers.
The main issue with drones in ACTA as opposed to SFB is the fact that ACTA requires: 1) that a ship must declare the "Defensive Fire!" special order to defend other ships, but in SFB all ships can engage drones targeted at other vessels as a standard firing action; and, 2) that in SFB often times a ship has several turns before the drones hit to shoot them down, throw off lock-ons, etc. Drones do not translate exactly over the SFB/ACTA barrier and I think its clear that this was an issue.
The rule additions that have previously been made to balance drones (5+ to hit over 18'' and the "3 ship" targeting rule) really worked. I have played many fun and difficult games against Kzinti ships where drone defense was exciting, and there was strategy involved in defeating large drone strikes...but the drones were no longer overpowering. it was fun and that's the main thing, right?
I suggest that scouts be permitted to use a channel to counter the drone defense channel of another scout. Scouts are still important, because you need them to counter other scouts, and woe betide the player who does not understand the importance of scouts if only to counter other scouts. This change would not only add strategy to the construction of fleets, but would return the potential of long-range drone bombardment to the game. I hope that this change is considered, because drones are part of the flavor of the SF universe (especially for the Kzinti). Otherwise, each game the Kzinti will be reduced to playing as Klingons rather than the "long-lance" race that they are supposed to be.
Oh, I am not a Kzinti player. Anyway...
However, one of the crucial elements of the scout "metagame" is that scouts have the capabilities to negate each other's actions. In SFB the Gorn scout is highly effective, given the amount of power it has compared to other scouts and so the Scout 4 rating it has makes sense to me.
But the Scout rules pose a major problem.
Drones have been effectively rendered useless within the game. A vessel with Scout 3 can suppress approximately 60% of the drone-throw capability of most 1000 point Kzinti fleets. Anyone facing the Kzinti (or the Klingons, to a lesser degree) can negate their drone capabilities with the addition of 2 scouts to their fleet. It can be argued that in the latter phases of the game, drones may once again play a part (after all scouts are dead...possibly) but that eliminates the strategy (and fun) involved in devising ways to counter a serious drone threat. It also transforms the Kzinti into a "junior Klingon" race with disruptors, but without the "shield rule" and with less phasers.
The main issue with drones in ACTA as opposed to SFB is the fact that ACTA requires: 1) that a ship must declare the "Defensive Fire!" special order to defend other ships, but in SFB all ships can engage drones targeted at other vessels as a standard firing action; and, 2) that in SFB often times a ship has several turns before the drones hit to shoot them down, throw off lock-ons, etc. Drones do not translate exactly over the SFB/ACTA barrier and I think its clear that this was an issue.
The rule additions that have previously been made to balance drones (5+ to hit over 18'' and the "3 ship" targeting rule) really worked. I have played many fun and difficult games against Kzinti ships where drone defense was exciting, and there was strategy involved in defeating large drone strikes...but the drones were no longer overpowering. it was fun and that's the main thing, right?
I suggest that scouts be permitted to use a channel to counter the drone defense channel of another scout. Scouts are still important, because you need them to counter other scouts, and woe betide the player who does not understand the importance of scouts if only to counter other scouts. This change would not only add strategy to the construction of fleets, but would return the potential of long-range drone bombardment to the game. I hope that this change is considered, because drones are part of the flavor of the SF universe (especially for the Kzinti). Otherwise, each game the Kzinti will be reduced to playing as Klingons rather than the "long-lance" race that they are supposed to be.
There has been talk (not least over on a discussion thread over on the ADB BBS) about how to refine the new Scout rules; if you check the archive post from 11.18am on the 3rd of July 2012 in that thread, you can see the kind of edits that have been offered (in public) at this point.
(In any case, the Scout rules themselves won't be formally published until book 2 comes out; so I wouldn't be surprised if at least some further changes were made between now and the time that book goes to press.)
(In any case, the Scout rules themselves won't be formally published until book 2 comes out; so I wouldn't be surprised if at least some further changes were made between now and the time that book goes to press.)
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
Re the above:
The balancing act with Scouts is going to be long and hard and it will not be perfect.
With scouts able to shut down enemy Drones as they can not the Drone users are at the bottom of the scale as far as effectiveness and power goes.
However the ability to counter the anti drone effect leads to a complete mess. Can you counter a counter to an anti drone? Can a scout counter the ability of a scout to add itself to a full Drone group? Can a scout sensor simply shut down another sensor regardless of its effect on a CQ?
Note this is probably a much better option to replace a whole lot of the rules and confusion. A scout may attempt to jam the function of any enemy scout. Each scout channel dedicated to this must be targeted against a single effect and requires an opposed CQ. Multiple scout channels can be used, the use of channels for jamming is declared during movement but the actual use of them is treated as defensive fire. IE. A scout 3 moves, it uses one channel to allow itself to add its drones to a three ship group and uses its other two for jamming, later in the movement an enemy scout uses its three channels to counter drone, the friendly scout then declares it is using its two defensive channels to try and block this. Either two channels to block one allowing two rolls to jam the anti drone (for example to protect a DN) or one channel against each allowing a chance to negate two enemy scout effects.
A Kzinti MC scout brings 4 Drones and scout 3 to the table for 30 points more than a normal MC. That gives it the ability to block anti drone on two other ships and use a third channel to add itself onto a three ship group for 16 Drone salvos.
A Klingon D5D brings a mere scout 2 to the table but comes with a very nice Drone 6. One sensor to add itself to another group and one to prevent anyone taking out its Drones and away it goes.
At present the fleets do not have a significant number of Drone bombardment ships available. These will come.
The scout rules must be able to handle both the current situation and the predictable changes for the future.
What should be avoided if possible is getting to the point where you must field scouts because the enemy may field scouts and without scouts you are helpless. This is much the same as the fighter/carrier situation.
Also scout sensors are line of sight. Terrain blocks them as it blocks weapons fire. It is possible to use Drones without any interference from a scout if you can manoeuvre around the terrain. Remember that anti Drone requires a LOS to the firing ship not the target ship. Firing from a point where you can see the enemy but the scout does not have LOS on you and your Drones cannot be countered.
The balancing act with Scouts is going to be long and hard and it will not be perfect.
With scouts able to shut down enemy Drones as they can not the Drone users are at the bottom of the scale as far as effectiveness and power goes.
However the ability to counter the anti drone effect leads to a complete mess. Can you counter a counter to an anti drone? Can a scout counter the ability of a scout to add itself to a full Drone group? Can a scout sensor simply shut down another sensor regardless of its effect on a CQ?
Note this is probably a much better option to replace a whole lot of the rules and confusion. A scout may attempt to jam the function of any enemy scout. Each scout channel dedicated to this must be targeted against a single effect and requires an opposed CQ. Multiple scout channels can be used, the use of channels for jamming is declared during movement but the actual use of them is treated as defensive fire. IE. A scout 3 moves, it uses one channel to allow itself to add its drones to a three ship group and uses its other two for jamming, later in the movement an enemy scout uses its three channels to counter drone, the friendly scout then declares it is using its two defensive channels to try and block this. Either two channels to block one allowing two rolls to jam the anti drone (for example to protect a DN) or one channel against each allowing a chance to negate two enemy scout effects.
A Kzinti MC scout brings 4 Drones and scout 3 to the table for 30 points more than a normal MC. That gives it the ability to block anti drone on two other ships and use a third channel to add itself onto a three ship group for 16 Drone salvos.
A Klingon D5D brings a mere scout 2 to the table but comes with a very nice Drone 6. One sensor to add itself to another group and one to prevent anyone taking out its Drones and away it goes.
At present the fleets do not have a significant number of Drone bombardment ships available. These will come.
The scout rules must be able to handle both the current situation and the predictable changes for the future.
What should be avoided if possible is getting to the point where you must field scouts because the enemy may field scouts and without scouts you are helpless. This is much the same as the fighter/carrier situation.
Also scout sensors are line of sight. Terrain blocks them as it blocks weapons fire. It is possible to use Drones without any interference from a scout if you can manoeuvre around the terrain. Remember that anti Drone requires a LOS to the firing ship not the target ship. Firing from a point where you can see the enemy but the scout does not have LOS on you and your Drones cannot be countered.
I bought Issue 1, it felt like a short read. I do hope that I will not have to buy captains log to get more add ons for this game. I do hope they will have more within a given issue to make me want to buy it, as it stands from the first issue, I don't feel like I got much from it for the money, mainly because this covers all the Call to Arms series games.
What do you guys think of the 1st issue?
What do you guys think of the 1st issue?
The second Journal should e about in a couple of months.
We have taken comments on board, and it should be jam-packed fuill of goodies!
We have taken comments on board, and it should be jam-packed fuill of goodies!
Similar threads
