ACTA Errata / FAQ Posted - feedback anyone

[Da Boss]

from the ADB forum

Two new documents went up regarding A Call to Arms: Star Fleet. There are a FAQ and an errata document. Both of the PDFs can be found here: http://www.starfleetgames.com/Call%20To%20Arms.shtml

To go directly to the FAQ: http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/Mongoose/CTA-Star_Fleet_FAQ.pdf

To go directly to the errata: http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/Mongoose/CTA-Star_Fleet_Errata.pdf

Some good stuff here - clears up issues with the civilian ships and a few minor changes to ships

Huge boost to the Klingon fleet - for instance
C7 gets Command +1 - and remains only 5pts more expensive than the D7C lots of advantages:

10 more damage, 5 extra Phaser 1's, and other stuff

Oh well guess these will be turning up alot in tournaments before it was a choice between Command and a pure gunship - now the C7 gives you both. Bit mad but Hey.....

 

[Nerroth]

I mentioned this over on the BBS, but I think the last entry in the errata for the Tholian BATS should add Web, not Drone, to their choices.

(I'm still waiting to see if my FLGS can get the book, so apologies if the original print version covered this already; but Tholians never use drones, and web is an essential aspect to the defence of their important fixed installations.)

 

[Da Boss]

The present rulebook entry for the Tholian Battle Station says Disruptor or Photon,

The errata adds drone to the weapon choices - no mention of the web anywhere that I can see in station entries.

Probably need to wait for the errata for the errata sheet :wink:

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

Aye, I was pushing for Command on the C7, but now I worry it may be undercosted compared to its cost in FedCom. Now, before I start going "well in FedCom" and some of the CTA players start breaking out the torches and pitforks, I'd like to stress the ONLY reason I'm bringing FedCom up is because it has been mentioned that the CTA:SF points totals were based on the FedCom points costs, and then adjusted through playtesting. I am bringing this up because I want to make sure CTA:SF's points are well balanced, not because I want to make CTA:SF into Federation Commander Mk2.

In FedCom the C7 costs 192 points, most ships in CTA:SF I've noticed cost about their FedCom points cost multiplied by 1.25 with some rounding to the nearest 5. A few good examples are the Federation ships, the CA, BCG, and DNG all multiply near perfect. Now the C7's 192*1.25 is 240 perfectly, yet currently the CTA:SF points cost is only 210 (compared to the C8 which is right on the money). Not sure why it seemingly got a 30 point discount, I think its a great ship, and Command+1 only makes it sweeter now.

Again, I only bring this up out of a desire to see CTA:SF well balanced. Overall however, I'm pretty happy with the errata. I especially like the stations getting scout and the Plasma-D anti-drone ability.

 

[Greg Smith]

As a general rule command +1 is costed at 25 points.

Points were tweaked in playtesting - through play, comparison up and down the same fleet list and comparison between similar ships of other fleets. Then reports were made to Matt and things changed (although with several sets of playtesters, not always the way you expect ).

As a previous ACTA playtester, I did not look at SFB/FC ships. So the way I looked at points was not in any way based on what the ships were like in SFB/FC. So the C7 didin't have command, and any suggested changes to points were based on that.

 

[Jean]

Nerroth, the entry for the BATS is for a base. Tholian bases don't get webs because the bases cannot move around and make webs.

I did verify that with SVC.

Jean

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

As a general rule command +1 is costed at 25 points.

Points were tweaked in playtesting - through play, comparison up and down the same fleet list and comparison between similar ships of other fleets. Then reports were made to Matt and things changed (although with several sets of playtesters, not always the way you expect ).

As a previous ACTA playtester, I did not look at SFB/FC ships. So the way I looked at points was not in any way based on what the ships were like in SFB/FC. So the C7 didin't have command, and any suggested changes to points were based on that.

Then you would agree with me that the C7 should probably be bumped up 25-30 points?

Also, what is your opinion of the D7? Cause as it stands I see no reason to take a D7 at 175 points. The exception might be the D7C (205 points), but now that the C7 has Command+1 at only 5 points more...

The D6 and D7 are out of proportion to eachother, the D7 is basically a D6 with a 25 point upgrade that adds a pair of T arc Ph-2 and two damage points, not worth that cost. It also doesn't really compete against the D5 (165 points) and D5W (185 points), which have better disruptor fire-arcs, 20 shields (an important threshold) and more Phaser 1s.

 

[Rambler]

The D6 and D7 are out of proportion to eachother, the D7 is basically a D6 with a 25 point upgrade that adds a pair of T arc Ph-2 and two damage points, not worth that cost. It also doesn't really compete against the D5 (165 points) and D5W (185 points), which have better disruptor fire-arcs, 20 shields (an important threshold) and more Phaser 1s.

WARNING WARNING useless SFU Tidbit...

The D7 is not suppose to be competative with the D5W. By the time the D5W came out most D7 were converted to other Variants or D7C, which is a Command and Contol Ship while the D5W is not. Any new D7 built this late in the war were eithe built straight as a Variant or built as D7W Heany Command Cruisers. It maybe be annoying but there is a timeline here that Federation Cmmander completely skips.

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

I know that. :wink: I was just trying to leave SFB/FedCom out of my argument.

However, I might as well mention that in FedCom the difference between the D6 and D7 is a mere 8 points, which'd be about 10 points in CTA:SF. This difference is also with the D6 only having Phaser-2s in it's boom section, unlike the Phaser-1s it has in CTA:SF.

 

[Nomad]

Generally pleased with those two documents, they seem to have resolved most of the issues. I'm liking the Kzinti CC/BC combo a lot more now they've got their 360 phaser-1s back.

Bit puzzled as to why bases don't have tractor beams - if only for drone defence - though.

 

[Rambler]

Bit puzzled as to why bases don't have tractor beams - if only for drone defence - though.

Yeah technically it should have 6 Tractor Beams and 4 Labs. But on the other hand bases now have a 1 in 3 chance of voiding a critical now.

 

[Totenkopf]

Does the FD7 need to be "updated"? As well, or is it suppose to have 5 phaser 1s and 6 phaser 2s?

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

Does the FD7 need to be "updated"? As well, or is it suppose to have 5 phaser 1s and 6 phaser 2s?

The two extra Phaser 1s are replacements for two of the D7's disruptors, notice they have the F arc ("Fast" ships generally trade out energy hungry heavy weapons for energy efficient Phasers 1s). The Phaser 2s are as normal, but they should probably be adjusted the same way the D7's phasers were.

 

[Totenkopf]

Does the FD7 need to be "updated"? As well, or is it suppose to have 5 phaser 1s and 6 phaser 2s?

The two extra Phaser 1s are replacements for two of the D7's disruptors, notice they have the F arc ("Fast" ships generally trade out energy hungry heavy weapons for energy efficient Phasers 1s). The Phaser 2s are as normal, but they should probably be adjusted the same way the D7's phasers were.

Nooooooooo!!!!!!

 

[Iain McGhee]

Bit puzzled as to why bases don't have tractor beams - if only for drone defence - though.

You'd have the same problem as the original freighters (before they went on a diet ) then if they tractored a ship.

 

[Greg Smith]

Then you would agree with me that the C7 should probably be bumped up 25-30 points?

Absolutely.

All the ships that have been given command should have a points increase, IMHO.

 

[MongooseMatt]

I am afraid ADB jumped the gun a bit - the real updates can be found here;

Errata: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/sferrata.pdf
FAQ: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/sffaq.pdf

 

[Iain McGhee]

You've got several Klingon designs (D5W, C7, Romulan KRC) with PH/SH arcs for their wing phasers which have been changed to T arc on the D7/D7C. D5 does it differently again. Haven't seen the SFU FD7 card, but it might have the same phaser-2 issues as the D7 (unless that's been done to balance out losing the disruptors).

IMO each method is as good as another for fudging those odd arcs (think it's forward, side, diagonally back in FC), but it could be seen as an inconsistency. It's certainly nitpick-friendly :wink:

 

[Digger]

Just a quick point, but what does:

"D7C Variant: Completely replace entry with; Replace Turret fire arc Phaser-2 with Phaser-1, change Marines 8, Anti-Drone 2, Transporters 7, add Command +1. +30 Points"

With what? Is this meant to be the same weapons suite as the D7, but with the T Phaser-2 now a Phaser-1?

Cheers!

 

[Da Boss]

Previously the 30pt upgrade gave you 1AD Phas 1 to PH and SH and Command +1

now it gives you:

Replace Turret fire arc Phaser-2 with Phaser-1,
change Marines 8,
Anti-Drone 2,
Transporters 7,
add Command +1.

so same weapons as the new version except, as you say the turret Phas 2 gets replaced by Phas 1