# ACTA - New Splitting Points Rules - Official Ruling Please

Burger, you're listing matches what I wrote up at lunchtime, it's recursive breakdowns as you mention.

Took about 5 minutes by hand, would have been about 2 on a PC.

LBH

Ripple said:
And this is simpler than a point system how again?...<dizzy>

Ripple

Dunno. Maybe Mongoose opted for this over more simple system because this has advantages point system cannot have(atleast unless you give different point value to each ship for each priority level ).

Ripple said:
And this is simpler than a point system how again?...<dizzy>

Ripple

The PL system is a points sytem...of sorts.

:lol:

LBH

msprange said:
Hi guys,

No reason you cannot combine the two methods!
Does this also apply to 2nd edition points splitting?

*Bump*

Burger said:
msprange said:
Hi guys,

No reason you cannot combine the two methods!
Does this also apply to 2nd edition points splitting?

Fairy nuff, thanks Matt. Inclusion of an explaination of the logic used to make the splits would have been preferable to just a list, though... easier to remember and use without referring to the list all the time.

I may be wrong on this, but the logic is:

You can buy down an FAP as per the table. If you do this you may split one of the resulting ship/points as per the rule in the rule book: 2 ships at a lower level and spliting only one of those down further.

Example: 1 War = 4 raid (table buy down) = 3 raid, 2 skirmish = 3 raid, 1 skirmish, 2 patrol

Or you may take an FAP and split it down. 1 war = 2 battle = 1 battle, 2 raid = 1 battle, 1 raid, 2 skirmish.

You cannot do the table buy down multiple times.

You cannot split and then use the table buy down.

Yeah that does seem to be how it works, Greg. It would've been nice to see it written consicely in the FAQ though. Something like:
- You can split a point according to this table...
- If you would like to split among multiple PLs you can first split according to the table above, and then re-split one point into two of the PL below.
- You can re-split one point of the new PL again, etc, if you wish.

It is a shame, since it pretty much screws over fleets with PL gaps such as Vorlons and Shadows. For a War point you can no longer take a Destroyer and 4 Transports, or a Stalker, Scout and 4 wings of fighters. That is pretty sucky.

Burger said:
It is a shame, since it pretty much screws over fleets with PL gaps such as Vorlons and Shadows.

Also fleets such as ISA suffer: I don't have any Nolo'Tars and don't really want any, but now I can't spend a War point to get 3 WS and 4 BS.

get a Liandra, its not a bad ship.

on ISA well any weakness in their priority level is at least partially compensated by being able to take a masive selection of Allies -

re Shadows / Vorlons - yeah screwed again - cos they don't need any more ships :roll:

Greg Smith said:
Burger said:
It is a shame, since it pretty much screws over fleets with PL gaps such as Vorlons and Shadows.

That sucks, I'd have assumed it worked the same way as Armageddon but with tweaked ratios.

LBH

I'd have assumed the same LBH, those rules made a lot of sense. I can't see the point in disallowing the Armageddon method. But, it is not so.

So there is an FAQ for this now? Where abouts?

Found it, nice to have an official ruling on the breakdown at last. Not sure about the "In addition an armageddon level ship costs...." part at the end though.

Define "not sure"?

It is just a list of how many points at that level it would coat to purchase a higher level ship...

Yep that was poorly phrased

I don't think the last paragraph adds any clarity and there is no explanation of what it means, is this a way of buying back ships after they have been split down? It doesn't say that it is, but then why give a list of ships and what they are worth in terms of PL points? As explanations go the FAQ is fine until it gets to the end where ~I am not sure what the hell it is talking about

It is simply putting into specifics how much larger ships cost.

Replies
22
Views
681
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
402
Replies
9
Views
477
Replies
2
Views
367