ACTA-SF ACTUAL ERRATA

[Digger]

This is a question about disruptors, please can someone at Mongoose advise:

"Should the Klingon E4 Light Frigate and F5 Frigate have disruptors at Range 15, when every other disruptor in the book is at Range 24"

My understanding is that the weapon range was standard, regardless of the fleet, e.g. Phaser 1 is always Range 18.

 

[Myrm]

If I remember my Star Fleet Universe correctly (ie the right edition of SFB), then I think those two ships should have shorter range disruptors cannot remember if its Derfacs, UIM or simply thosemounts that did it but memory is sayng short range disruptors for E4s

 

[Iain McGhee]

E4 and F5 have shorter-ranged Disruptors in Federation Commander, same deal in ACTA as noted below the chart on p8 of the rulebook.

Range 24 Disruptors on the Kzinti FF does seem like an error, however, since it also has reduced range Disruptors in FC.

 

[billclo]

deleted

 

[Iain McGhee]

I think we're in danger of steering this thread off-track too, Digger was trying to keep it for errata only, not discussion

Regarding photon torpedoes, since I suppose it qualifies: I think the ACTA range is spot on in comparison to other weapon stats. In FC (where they're range 25) you've only got a 1 in 6 chance of hitting anything over range 12 (and only better than 50:50 below range 5-8 ). Proximity mode doesn't exist in either system, although ACTA torpedoes are slightly more accurate than their FC counterparts at long range.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Regarding photon torpedoes, since I suppose it qualifies: I think the ACTA range is spot on in comparison to other weapon stats. In FC (where they're range 25) you've only got a 1 in 6 chance of hitting anything over range 12 (and only better than 50:50 below range 5-8 ).

Indeed - they reflect 'effective range,' if you like, in CTA. This applies to all weapons in one form or another.

And yes, certain ships do indeed have reduced range disruptors, as noted on page 8.

An FAQ/errata document has already been prepared and is currently under review at ADB - as soon as it gets the green light from them, we'll be posting it. However, I can say there is nothing earth-shattering or game unbalancing in it, just a handful or so of tidy ups. Should be out in the second week of January, hoping to see it a smidgin sooner.

 

[Digger]

Thanks Matt, appreciated.

And if the other guys could just keep this thread for actual errata, I am sure it will make everyone's life easier.

If you want to bitch about how photon's should be, instead of what they are; please use a different thread. If a Mod could also help out with this, it would be appreciated also,

Cheers.

 

[Ben2]

All romulan Eagle ships except the War Eagle are armoured in ACTA:SF. Should the War Eagle have armour? They all have armour in SFB.

 

[Da Boss]

F5 Frigate
Should it have the same traits as the Romulan version (excpting cloak)
ie: Labs 2 and Tractor Beam 1,

Klingon C8 Dreadnought
Should Phaser'2 be 12" range or actually Phaser 1's

 

[DHarris]

There are several ships with confusing phaser range and stats. Phaser 2s with phaser 1 range but having paser 3 killzones. I should have wrote them down, probably would have been a whole lot more helpful than what I just typed. I will look again to get a list together.

 

[Iain McGhee]

The Large, Free and Heavy Freighters have range 18 phaser-2s (rest of the weapon data for the phaser-2 matches that on the weapons chart). Might be intended to give them a chance, rather than an error.

The Klingon C8 has range 18 phaser-2s (maybe wrong) and Kill Zone 2 (certainly wrong).

 

[DHarris]

Thanks for the backup on that one. Those were the ones I was referring to.

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

Speaking of Disruptor Ranges, in CTA:SF if an Orion Light Raider takes Disruptor(s) in it's option mounts, are they Range 15 or 24 disruptors? In SFB/FedCom they're short range ones, IIRC.

 

[Nomad]

Compared to FC & SFB, the Kzinti Battlecruiser has lost two Phaser-1s, their NCA & CM have had their Phaser-1 arcs reduced (should be one AD each FS, FP, PH & SH) and the DW has had her T arc Phaser-3s turned into Phaser-1s. The CL is lacking labs and tractors. The FF should have a range-15 disruptor.

The Romulan Sparrowhawk's damage stat of 30/10 seems way out of line - more than a Firehawk?

The Klingon F5 is missing labs and tractors. The Phaser-2s on the C8 DN should be range-12, not 18.

Romulan KF5R should not have Anti-drones.

The Orion SALs option mounts should be 1AD each, not two.

 

[Iain McGhee]

It's not the Sparrowhawk having too many damage points, it's the Firehawk having too few. Look at the Royalhawk and Novahawk variants.

 

[Nerroth]

In SFB/FedCom they're short range ones, IIRC.

They are in FC, yes.

 

[Ben2]

Just wanted to come back to the Federation Texas Class CL. In ACTA SFU the damage score is twice the number of hull/cargo boxes on the SSD for SFB (filtered through Federation Commander).

The damage on a Old Light cruiser is 24, and the SFB SSD gives it 12 hull boxes (6 fore, 6 aft). It also has 6 armour, more than the King Eagle, Battle Hawk and Snipe which do get the armoured trait.

Could we get an optional rule to give it the armoured trait for 5 or 10 points more?

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

The Armored trait is a tricky beast. It basically nullifies roughly 1/6th of all incoming hull damage. On the fragile Eagle series this isn't so bad, as the armored trait will stop one or two damage points before the ship runs out of "health". However, the more damage points a ship has, the more effective the armored trait becomes as the ship survives longer, giving it more chances to block hits with its armor.

The Texas class has a lot more damage points, than most of the Eagles, how many points would this be worth? I'm not sure it would be only 5 or 10 points.

I'm not against the idea, but it has to be carefully considered, if the point cost increases too much, why wouldn't you just take a Fed-CA/Constitution Class, which is probably more durable even without armor and has much more firepower.

 

[Ben2]

The CL is 130 now, and I can see giving it armoured bumping it to the 140-145 range. It would still be the largest armoured ship in the game (using the 2x hull boxes = damage the Romulan Vulture Dreadnought would only have 14 damage).

It still fits nicely in the niche between the Federation War Destroyer and the New Light Cruiser, which has more shields and torpedoes, but less hull.

All I'm after is making sure the ACTA conversion reflects some of the character of SFB, and the Old CL class gave the Federation a ship that wasn't just a saucer with a variety of bits attached, but was a genuine historical throw back to a different era of ship design.

 

[Digger]

Guys, this thread is meant for actual errata and not opinion, so please unless it is an an actual errata issue; please can you keep it to another thread!

This is the second thread I have started to try and get actual issues resolved with regards to the printed rules, so if its not about the book, please post elsewhere. I really don't care about the armour of Romulan ships; if the book states it, then let's leave it until the addenda comes out!

Cheers.