A Call to Arms: Star Fleet Rules Preview

[MongooseMatt]

Planet Mongoose is currently fielding a preview of the new rules used in A Call to Arms: Star Fleet, including a glimpse at how a very famous ship performs in the game. You can get the full article at;

http://blog.mongoosepublishing.co.uk/

 

[Iain McGhee]

Thanks, interesting to see how some of the ACTA basics have been altered to fit the SFU better. Looks like a good system, can't wait to try it out.

 

[Agis]

I like what I read. A LOT! :!:
To be honest, of all the ST settings I dislike the TOS setting the most.
For me it is DS9, ENT, TNG, VOY, TOS, TAS.

BUT - the above rules and the already leaked previews of additional ship designs makes me very interested.
I see a Klingon fleet to be painted... 8)
Please keep us informed Matt…

 

[MongooseMatt]

To be honest, of all the ST settings I dislike the TOS setting the most.

Consider it my personal mission to change that

I see a Klingon fleet to be painted... 8)

Two weeks or so, we'll have the full Klingon range on display!

 

[locarno24]

Hmm.... my one concern is that centrelining someone giving you PH & SH essentially brings back the joys of boresight. That said, it's not the end of the world for the side who's initiative sunk - after all, if guns are split between PH, SH and FH fairly evenly, you only lose 1/3 of your firepower if a target is slightly off-bore, so I guess suck it up.

Power drain sounds cool. I note that whilst I can cut power to the engines or the guns, I can't draw power from the shields, though...

Constitution looks nice. I like the turns/handling trait as well. The fact that you can manouvre continuously is going to lead to much more sweeping turns on the board.

 

[Iron Domokun]

Power drain sounds cool. I note that whilst I can cut power to the engines or the guns, I can't draw power from the shields, though...

In the SFU, the engines generate power and the power is committed to either movement or weapons. Shields take very little power (two units of power to raise to full strength for most cruisers) whereas moving at battle speed may take twenty units of power or more. Firing all weapons can take as much power as moving. You don't gain much power by dropping shields and you gain a lot of protection by leaving them up.

 

[AdrianH]

Aft phasers on a Constitution? That must be something added by SFU because no Constitution class in either TOS or movies ever had aft weapons.

The only way the Constitution gets to fire all 6 AD is if it achieves the equivalent of B5's boresight. Presumably we'll do the same as we do when playing B5:ACTA, which is to declare when moving that you're lining up on a ship which has already moved and can't get out of the way. Otherwise there is going to be a lot of fiddling about with measuring tapes during the movement phase and a lot of accusations of cheating when we get to the firing phase and find out that it's not quite exactly lined up any more... (This was never in the official rules but most people playing B5:ACTA do it anyway as it saves all sorts of hassle!)

There does not seem to be much variation in ship speeds. "Fast" ships have speed 14, everyone else has speed 12.

I'll be interested to see how the new rules handle Romulan cloaks, presumably more than just Stealth. At a guess, that's in the next episode.

 

[Iron Domokun]

Yes, Federation aft phasers are an SFU-ism. Without them, the Constitution-class has no defenses to the rear. You'll be grateful for those phasers when dealing with drones and plasma torpedoes.

ETA: Yes, tactically in the SFU all ships fly at a pretty similar speed. Most ships generate enough power to fly at 20 hexes per turn and arm all weapons. (Max tactical speed is 31 hexes per turn. Faster than that and your ship can't engage the enemy.) Fast ships tend to be a little faster tactically because they have fewer weapons and big engines. Strategically, fast ships are much faster than conventional ships.

ETA2: Cloaks I've heard stop you from launching seeking weapons at the cloaked ship and may shed any seekers already in flight. Probably does other stuff too. But it is more than Stealth.

 

[MongooseMatt]

The only way the Constitution gets to fire all 6 AD is if it achieves the equivalent of B5's boresight. Presumably we'll do the same as we do when playing B5:ACTA, which is to declare when moving that you're lining up on a ship which has already moved and can't get out of the way. Otherwise there is going to be a lot of fiddling about with measuring tapes during the movement phase and a lot of accusations of cheating when we get to the firing phase and find out that it's not quite exactly lined up any more... (This was never in the official rules but most people playing B5:ACTA do it anyway as it saves all sorts of hassle!)

In practice, this doesn't really arise as a problem in CTA:SF. First, phasers are short-ranged, so you are never going to be trying to line up a ship across the table. Second, you are not going to have just one or two ships like this but perhaps most of your fleet (making things less critical), and third, if you do screw up and miss the 'boresight' you are not missing an attack but just 2 AD. Hardly the end of the world.

It is just not as important.

 

[AdrianH]

The only way the Constitution gets to fire all 6 AD is if it achieves the equivalent of B5's boresight. Presumably we'll do the same as we do when playing B5:ACTA, which is to declare when moving that you're lining up on a ship which has already moved and can't get out of the way...

In practice, this doesn't really arise as a problem in CTA:SF. First, phasers are short-ranged, so you are never going to be trying to line up a ship across the table. Second, you are not going to have just one or two ships like this but perhaps most of your fleet (making things less critical), and third, if you do screw up and miss the 'boresight' you are not missing an attack but just 2 AD. Hardly the end of the world.

The phasers on the Constitution are range 18, the same as the Hyperion's laser. Drazi beam ranges are shorter. Range was never the issue. (Your second point also applies to the Drazi. ) Besides, since the practice of declaring boresight was an unofficial, unwritten rule, the sort of people for whom losing a couple of AD is no big problem would be doing that anyway. And the sort of people who would object because it's not in the official rules are probably the sort of people for whom losing 2AD is the end of the world. :lol:

 

[Agis]

To be honest, of all the ST settings I dislike the TOS setting the most.

Consider it my personal mission to change that

LOL, my hero! :wink:

BTW: To get in the mood I already re-watched some TOS classsics and even painted some not starship minis:

http://www.adpublishing.de/html/general_scifi.html

 

[Agis]

...Besides, since the practice of declaring boresight was an unofficial, unwritten rule...

That is really funny Adrian, we played Boresight here in Berlin exactly as you mention it.
:shock: 8)
But I can see Matts points...

 

[locarno24]

As can I. The nice thing is that 'boresight' isn't an all-or-nothing proposition; as noted, you'll only lose a proportion of your fire, not every last AD. Equally, a PH weapon on a ship without a boresight target can still shoot at any target to the left - it's not like a Hyperion's laser which can't fire at all, it's just stopping you ganging all your guns up on one target.

Also, equally importantly, ships armed federation-fashion also have a 'broadside boresight' at the meeting point of FH & AH, so you don't have that 'bugger, they're not in front of me anymore' to the same degree (Admittedly you lose torpedoes)

 

[Nerroth]

The CA as presented in the preview is based on the refitted version offered in other games (in SFB terms, it would be the CAR+, to denote the two refits it had been modified to incoroporate), which show the class as it had been upgraded by the dawn of the General War. The unrefitted CA as it served in the era of the "five-year mission" does not have the rear-firing phasers installed; you could rep it here by simply deleting the AH and T phasers and the drone rack (and maybe dropping the overall shield strength by a point or two).

Now, the thing about that is in this game, the arcs are all either 90 or 180 degrees; in other SFU tactical games, which are generally hex-based, arcs can also be 60, 120 or other such degrees. So, in this game, an unrefitted CA would still be able to fire its port and starboard phasers to aft, while the one in the hex-based games cannot fire in the aft 120-degree arc (since the nacelles block the firing arc).

That's one of the reasons why some of the ships, like the Battlecruiser and Strike Cruiser, have lowered nacelle struts; to allow the phasers on the side of the saucer to fire directly aft. (A distinction that is pretty much lost in the shuffle this time around, it seems...)

 

[Da Boss]

The only way the Constitution gets to fire all 6 AD is if it achieves the equivalent of B5's boresight. Presumably we'll do the same as we do when playing B5:ACTA, which is to declare when moving that you're lining up on a ship which has already moved and can't get out of the way. Otherwise there is going to be a lot of fiddling about with measuring tapes during the movement phase and a lot of accusations of cheating when we get to the firing phase and find out that it's not quite exactly lined up any more... (This was never in the official rules but most people playing B5:ACTA do it anyway as it saves all sorts of hassle!)

In practice, this doesn't really arise as a problem in CTA:SF. First, phasers are short-ranged, so you are never going to be trying to line up a ship across the table. Second, you are not going to have just one or two ships like this but perhaps most of your fleet (making things less critical), and third, if you do screw up and miss the 'boresight' you are not missing an attack but just 2 AD. Hardly the end of the world.

It is just not as important.

In my opinion its probably actually more important than boresight in B5 and a short paragraph in the Wierd Situations / Advanced Rules section could save headaches and arguments - esp in tournaments. As Adrian says having both players agree to something in the move phase works extremely well, people will get upset if they are "suddenly" deprived of half their weapons fire. Its a little thing that makes the world turn round a little more smoothly

Weapon stat layout - I would prefer the 2nd version below as you can work through each arc and less likely to miss a weapon - IMO speeds the game up but happy to hear other peoples thoughts / suggestions.

so rather than

Weapon / Range / Arc / AD / Special
Phaser-1 / 18 / FH / 2 / Accurate +2, Kill Zone 8, Precise
Phaser-1 / 18 / PH / 2 / Accurate +2, Kill Zone 8, Precise
Phaser-1 / 18 / SH / 2 / Accurate +2, Kill Zone 8, Precise
Phaser-1 / 18 / AH / 2 / Accurate +2, Kill Zone 8, Precise
Phaser-3 / 6 / T / 2 / Accurate +1, Kill Zone 2, Precise
Photon Torpedoes / 15 / F / 4 / Devastating +1, Multihit 4, Reload
Drone / 36 / T / 1 / Devastating +1, Multihit D6, Seeking

we have

Weapon / Range / Arc / AD / Special
Drone / 36 / T / 1 / Devastating +1, Multihit D6, Seeking
Phaser-1 / 18 / FH / 2 / Accurate +2, Kill Zone 8, Precise
Photon Torpedoes / 15 / F / 4 / Devastating +1, Multihit 4, Reload
Phaser-1 / 18 / PH / 2 / Accurate +2, Kill Zone 8, Precise
Phaser-1 / 18 / SH / 2 / Accurate +2, Kill Zone 8, Precise
Phaser-1 / 18 / AH / 2 / Accurate +2, Kill Zone 8, Precise
Phaser-3 / 6 / T / 2 / Accurate +1, Kill Zone 2, Precise

 

[Shadow Queen]

Just a nit pick the Defiant is missing from the Constitution listing of starships

 

[Jean]

Shadow Queen, in the SFU the Defiant is in a different subset of the CAs. You might enjoy looking at the Starship Name Registry here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/Starship_Name_Registry.pdf

Jean

 

[Shadow Queen]

Thats a long list

 

[Jean]

That it is! Few people realize there are so many ships out there to blow up stuff (and be blown up).

Jean

 

[Shadow Queen]

Cool