Greg Smith
Mongoose
Lt.Derina said:
Actually I plan to just add some aerials and engines, and hopefully not damage the paintwork too much, since it looks pretty good to me.
The other EA ships are stripped and painted though.
acta costs
- Thread starter mother/father
- Start date
Actually I plan to just add some aerials and engines, and hopefully not damage the paintwork too much, since it looks pretty good to me.
The other EA ships are stripped and painted though.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
In BFG you don't need fighter models, just use the counters in the box set. You can do the same for ACtA but you need to buy the counter set seperately now.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Well speaking as someone who dropped over £300 on ACTA way back when at the first Open Day (Nov 6th 2004) I have to say that how much is too much is a very subjective assessment.
:lol:
LBH
:lol:
LBH
Probably because the Shadowcloak is new, you're paying for all the overheads costs such as design, molds, etc. Whereas Tethys they're already paid for, the price is just for the model, distribution and packaging. Once the overheads have been made back I'd expect the new models to drop in price (or at least, not rise with inflation...)Rorschach said:
lastbesthope
Mongoose
hiffano said:
Course I couldn't, Mongoose don't sell paint.
LBH
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Slightly off topic but in reply to Rorschach:
ACTA vs BFG - For the most part I prefer ACTA, theres alot more variety in the fleets and fighter combat is (now anyway) handled MUCH better. However that's not to say BFG isn't alot of fun still (and personally I've always loved the gunnery table, especially since it makes stealth WAY more viabale than ACTA's stealth rules)
ACTA vs Fed Commander - Cant comment here really having not played the latter, but I HAVE played SFB and that if Fed Commander is anything like its predecessor then I dont really think its a fair comparison since its a case of more a starship battle simulator compared to a fleet combat game and frankly for small numbers of ships SFB has so much more depth that for me it's the better game. The downside is however simple, average ACTA game 2-3 hourse, small SFB game 4-5 hours.
ACTA vs Full Thrust - I'm sorry but I have to disagree here. As much as I like ACTA and its B5 setting, the Full Thrust rule system is a thing of beauty that has yet to be bettered in my eyes for a combination of game balance, ease of play, tactical depth, fun factor, and realistic feel. (except for the ship design system, you could break the game severely with that as one of my friends demonstrated by filling a light cruiser with more beams than any sane person ever would, the thing was weak and fragile in theory but it could alpha strike a ship 3 times its size off the table in one salvo....)
ACTA vs BFG - For the most part I prefer ACTA, theres alot more variety in the fleets and fighter combat is (now anyway) handled MUCH better. However that's not to say BFG isn't alot of fun still (and personally I've always loved the gunnery table, especially since it makes stealth WAY more viabale than ACTA's stealth rules)
ACTA vs Fed Commander - Cant comment here really having not played the latter, but I HAVE played SFB and that if Fed Commander is anything like its predecessor then I dont really think its a fair comparison since its a case of more a starship battle simulator compared to a fleet combat game and frankly for small numbers of ships SFB has so much more depth that for me it's the better game. The downside is however simple, average ACTA game 2-3 hourse, small SFB game 4-5 hours.
ACTA vs Full Thrust - I'm sorry but I have to disagree here. As much as I like ACTA and its B5 setting, the Full Thrust rule system is a thing of beauty that has yet to be bettered in my eyes for a combination of game balance, ease of play, tactical depth, fun factor, and realistic feel. (except for the ship design system, you could break the game severely with that as one of my friends demonstrated by filling a light cruiser with more beams than any sane person ever would, the thing was weak and fragile in theory but it could alpha strike a ship 3 times its size off the table in one salvo....)
Locutus9956 said:
At its core, yes Full Thrust is a wonderful elegant system. One that is almost completely unsupported however, with Fleet lists that badly need an update. And that last issue is compounded by the fact that, yes, homegrown Ship Designs simply break the game quickly. In particular, the Kra'Vak and Phalon (if someone is daring enough to play the Flying Phallus Fleet) tend to dominate too easily. While Savasku and NAC struggle to keep up.
I won't even get into the imbalances of the crazy playtest fleets.
So were they to come out with and update and some new minis, and updated fleet lists, I'd take a second look. But an unsupported game is a dead game when its not perfect out of the box. And a Live game beats a dead game
Locutus9956 said:
From the reviews and battle reports I've read of it, it plays enough like the old game to keep the old players happy, but gets rid of much of the complexity and slowness of it. It allows you to field many more ships and be able to finish the game in a couple hours and keeps the power allocation rules. There is a good battle report for it in the latest issue of the Fictional Reality magazine.
http://www.fictionalreality.org/
