ACTA:SF 2nd Edition?

[AkosPrime]

There were some players at Gen Con this past week claiming (spreading rumors) that a 2nd edition of the ACTA:Star Fleet rules was going to be released "soon". Since I don't see anything at all on the 'Release Schedule' for ACTA, I'm wondering if this is true or not.

Does any one know a.) if a second edition rules set is indeed in the works, b.) if so what the anticipated release date for it will be?

Thanks

 

[billclo]

Last I have heard, some rules were still to be cleaned up or clarified, errata added, etc. Pre-Origins, the schedule said 2nd half of 2013, but who really knows?

PDFs of the first rulebook were promised in the spring, but are a no-show yet.

Basically the game is awaiting the new rulebook, and more miniatures from the first book. Steve Cole said that the rules needed to be cleaned up/changed and all of the ships from Book 1 released before the game can proceed with the 2nd rulebook/ships. There has been no solid information released as to when to expect this. I would be surprised if it were before Christmas, but who knows?

The game is perfectly playable as is, so go ahead and play until the new rules come out.

 

[MongooseMatt]

No one has told me

 

[Ben2]

No one has told me

Of course if you're thinking of one, I've got some ideas.......

 

[billclo]

Steve Cole posted this update on the game over on the SFU BBS:

"As for the rule book, not this year. I don't expect to start working on fixes until Traveller is finished and that won't happen before November. Assuming Traveller is done then (67%) and assuming that all goes well (33%) the earliest would be February. I would not bet the farm on March, or April, or May. I would not bet the farm on my getting out of bed tomorrow either, because I'm not a gambler. "

And concerning the remaining miniatures:
"The "missing" ships from book one have moved to prototyping. ".

 

[kyrolon]

So in other words ACTA:SF is in cryo sleep until mid 2014? Yeah, that will help with the playerbase. :?

 

[billclo]

Not really. I am still working on running demos and expanding the playerbase. I just tell them there is going to be a new rulebook sometime in the future, and in the meantime just play with what we have.

 

[kyrolon]

The problem being, no one wants to buy a rulebook that is already in countdown to becoming irrelevant. Now, I am used to this (I play 40k God help me ) but it is somewhat cutting down on getting anyone new interested. We are up to 6 people that we play with on a semiregular basis (probably slowing down a bit since Drummer starts work again with the school year) but I have tried with a few other people and they prefer to stick with Fed Com or not get involved at all citing "the rules issues" as one of the problems.

Also add to that that I am getting a little tired myself of constant changes, and having to remember "what Matt said" as a citation.

 

[billclo]

Would it be feasible to teach everyone the rules, but have them NOT buy the current rulebook? They can buy minis/use yours, whatever, until the new rulebook comes out, right?

Yeah, the game has issues, but if you are waiting until the rules are perfect, you may be waiting a long time. How many years did it take until SFB was finalized? While I do have issues with some of the rules, but I just do the best I can and carry on.

I have had some potential players balk, citing frequent rule changes, but the majority of the people who balk at playing the game say that given Mongoose's reputation for abandoning a game system mid-stream and moving on to the next new and shiny thing (or words to that effect), they are very reluctant to even try the game. Burned too many times I guess. I think Matt fails to grasp how bad Mongoose's reputation in the gaming community actually is. MUCH work is needed to turn that bad reputation around.

 

[Reynard]

I really hope it's only the complainers who loudly give their opinions on these forums howling they won't play a game until the Perfect Ruleset is issued. I like to think people like me actually enjoy the game even with the few dents that have been fixed with errata and are busy playing the game.

2nd Edition means you want the game completely redone as if the original was somehow totally unplayable. Wow, how many game systems have endured that attitude in the last few decades?! Second edition? Come on! Just a second printing with 'errors' corrected. The game is refreshingly simple to need a complete reboot.

Personally, my friends and I want to see an expansion with the next set of races, new space hazards, maybe some space monster rules for solo and multiplayer scenarios. I already own two of the rulebooks, I don't need a shiny new one incompatible with the original.

 

[billclo]

Personally, my friends and I want to see an expansion with the next set of races, new space hazards, maybe some space monster rules for solo and multiplayer scenarios. I already own two of the rulebooks, I don't need a shiny new one incompatible with the original.

How are your mini F&E rules coming along? Have you thought about writing scenarios for publication? We need new scenarios for the game, for sure. If people can write them, and do some testing, submit them for publication in Captain's Log.

I've got one in the pipeline, don't know how that will turn out, but have to keep on thinking of new stuff to run at conventions so might as well try to make them publishable as well.

Though I am thinking of just a massive fleet battle at Origins, for people who have played at least one game... might be prudent to have an assistant Game Master for that one. :lol:

While there hasn't been much released as of late, I'm still promoting the game. I have introduced 67 people to the game this year so far... with hopefully 16-24 at a November convention. There is still interest in the game; most people who try the game have never heard of it. The game could use more publicity...

 

[Allerka]

I've got one officially into it in the past month, and I'm gonna formally introduce another next week. There's a few more at my store that have watched us play and want to check it out as well.

The rules are generally fine, though my friend and I that play when we can agree we pretty much need to do our own errata for the holes in the rules we encounter.

 

[AkosPrime]

At Gen Con Jon W. was running a CTA:SF game and I have to say the thing that made that game more visually appealing and playable was actually the use of a number of custom designed accessories that he had designed, from laminated ship sheets and counters/tokens for special actions and statuses. It's the little things like this that really add to the play experience. Right now there's nothing officially released that covers this (that I know of) so everyone is basically responsible for coming up with their own versions of these things - if they bother. I think it might be worth some time for Mongoose to release some free PDF's for ship sheets and counters to help enhance player experience.

 

[billclo]

At Gen Con Jon W. was running a CTA:SF game and I have to say the thing that made that game more visually appealing and playable was actually the use of a number of custom designed accessories that he had designed, from laminated ship sheets and counters/tokens for special actions and statuses. It's the little things like this that really add to the play experience. Right now there's nothing officially released that covers this (that I know of) so everyone is basically responsible for coming up with their own versions of these things - if they bother. I think it might be worth some time for Mongoose to release some free PDF's for ship sheets and counters to help enhance player experience.

I tend to agree that custom markers/tokens/other things that people design for the game really do add to the visual appeal. A big opportunity was lost when the game was released too early, without play aids of any kind. I tried to get the powers that be interested in my base stickers, to no avail. Even a generic ship record form would have been VERY useful.

The ship record forms that are slowly trickling out are too little, far too late, IMHO. Having base stickers, special action tokens, and ship records available from the get-go would have probably been something that stimulated sales.

 

[Reynard]

"How are your mini F&E rules coming along? Have you thought about writing scenarios for publication? We need new scenarios for the game, for sure. If people can write them, and do some testing, submit them for publication in Captain's Log."

Not to bog this thread with a tangent and I'm not sure if we're actually allowed to talk about that rule set. Just say I consider it fairly complete for now. It was, in my opinion, a means to generate ongoing, and hopefully interesting, scenarios depending on the strategic decisions of the players.

 

[kyrolon]

I really hope it's only the complainers who loudly give their opinions on these forums howling they won't play a game until the Perfect Ruleset is issued. I like to think people like me actually enjoy the game even with the few dents that have been fixed with errata and are busy playing the game.

2nd Edition means you want the game completely redone as if the original was somehow totally unplayable. Wow, how many game systems have endured that attitude in the last few decades?! Second edition? Come on! Just a second printing with 'errors' corrected. The game is refreshingly simple to need a complete reboot.

Personally, my friends and I want to see an expansion with the next set of races, new space hazards, maybe some space monster rules for solo and multiplayer scenarios. I already own two of the rulebooks, I don't need a shiny new one incompatible with the original.

Don't worry, Reynard, we are playing the game quite a lot (for us at least) and we are liking it. I have found it isn't too hard to get existing SFU players involved, but to get other gamers with a broader gaming background involved is hard. When you take the rulebook to the game, and you have pages of errata for far more than simple editing errors, people raise an eyebrow. When you combine this with the reputation Bill mentioned above and gamers who have "been around the block" you get head shaking and polite refusal.

For now, we manage with those of us who have the rules. In the future? Who knows. A PDF rerelease with the errata included is all I really want, not a complete rewrite. That would go a long way, unfortunately that is apparently way down on the list of things to do at ADB since they have so many projects and only 1 or 2 people allowed to edit them.

I know people want new stuff. I want Lyrans and Hydrans for sure. Unfortunately, until the rules get fixed (with at least the PDF) all developments were on hold last I heard. So, in that case, you should want the redone rules as well.

 

[McKinstry]

I continue to play and paint and if there is anything resembling a coherent relaunch, I think I've a group of 5-8 guys that are ready to commit but for now, I run a game once a month, it is well received but.. the guys that like the game simply aren't willing to jump through the hoops involved in a painful ordering/delivery/quality loop on the models and even more so for our FLGS.

Let's hope the production gets recentralized in the UK with quality, delivery and speed reaching the mid-level of industry standard and then, I think the bottom line license, system and models can become a first rate popular game on a par with Firestorm Armada and Full Thrust. It is a very good system and for fleets of spaceships, Trek is simply great.

 

[Drummer]

Integrating the new races, with their new weapons and abilities, and balancing everything accordingly is my concern. No easy task.

While I love playing Hydrans, I'd rather not see them slice easily through our little universe with overpowered gatling phasers. Or Lyrans with an impenetrable ESG. Or a "Death Star" like PPD blast from across the board from the ISC.

I wonder what the Tholian web is going to be like?

While Mongoose introduced new drone types, there was sudden realization that it unbalanced the mechanics of things. I mean, keep the game simple and try not having too much minutia (like the whole variety of drones).

 

[Allerka]

Totally agree with the drone variants. Just when they mentioned the possibility, I and several others got VERY vocal about how that was making it needlessly complex, and we were told it wouldn't be that complicated. Then the rules came out, and...they were needlessly complicated, to the point of being redacted.


Anyway, I'm wondering about something. Even with a system like 40K, there's tons of holes in the rules, even after FAQs and eratta are put out. Part of that is GW kinda half-arses the FAQs and doesn't make them nearly as comprehensive as they should be. So a pretty big fan group consisting of tournament organizers and others across the US got together and put together the INAT FAQ, which is a pretty comprehensive document that tries to address every possible situation GW never bothered to cover.

I'm wondering about the possibility of doing something similar with the ACTA rules. I seriously doubt it'd need to be 100+ pages, but it would allow for us to have some sort of agreed-upon answers for most situations that might arise but aren't covered directly in the existing documentation. And who knows, some of it might get integrated into an updated rulebook anyway!

Thoughts?

 

[Da Boss]

Previously I would have said - go for it!

However this iteration of ACTA is much more complex with two companies involved and ADB understandably extremely careful and protective of their licence and also everything related to the SFU in terms of how it works.

You would need to ask both parties - from previous experience I think MGP will say yes but I don't think ADB will be keen - hopefully I will be wrong but they tend to see, rightly or wrongly, anything not official as confusing for the fans.................