Democratus
Mongoose
Nerroth said:
The C7 in SFB is a Heavy Battlecruiser (BCH), not a Heavy Command Cruiser (CCH).
Was this changed in FC?
ACTA - SF Errata
- Thread starter Digger
- Start date
The C7 in SFB is a Heavy Battlecruiser (BCH), not a Heavy Command Cruiser (CCH).
Was this changed in FC?
starbreaker
Mongoose
Renny said:
That's Noble Armada, not Star Fleet. The shield values are very different as well - 3 or 4 shields is the norm in NA, while SF ships often have a dozen or more. Shields in SF are an ablative damage total, where NA ones are a threshhold to be exceeded to damage the ships hull itself - although burnout weapons make it a once-per-turn threshhold in many cases.
Just to let you all know, a clarification document is being worked on right now and will be available for download after Christmas!
AdmiralGrafSpee
Mongoose
msprange said:
Fantastic! Since I'm in Canada and ordered through my LGS, I'll probably get them both at the same time!
-Tim
Iapologisedon4chan
Mongoose
The SAL needs nerfing now that I look at it.
As is, you can have a SAL with Battlecruiser toughness, 6 tractor beams, and a possible EIGHT (!!!!) drone racks all for 150 points.
Either the AD of it's starting drone racks or the AD of it's option mounts needs to be halved AT THE VERY LEAST.
Another good option would be replacing the drones option with the option of taking Plasma-F.
Seriously, just look at that statblock, if you don't change this then I can guarantee that every tournament you host is going to be won by a fleet of 4x LR with all phasers, abusing the Energy Drain rules to Boost their Shields every turn and "only" fire phasers, in front of 6x SAL's with 8 drones each.
As is, you can have a SAL with Battlecruiser toughness, 6 tractor beams, and a possible EIGHT (!!!!) drone racks all for 150 points.
Either the AD of it's starting drone racks or the AD of it's option mounts needs to be halved AT THE VERY LEAST.
Another good option would be replacing the drones option with the option of taking Plasma-F.
Seriously, just look at that statblock, if you don't change this then I can guarantee that every tournament you host is going to be won by a fleet of 4x LR with all phasers, abusing the Energy Drain rules to Boost their Shields every turn and "only" fire phasers, in front of 6x SAL's with 8 drones each.
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
According to the Ship Card/SSD, the SAL should have, at most, six drone racks. It has four phaser-1s, two phaser-3, two "standard" mounts which can mount most single-space heavy weapons (or one two-space, like plasma-S). It then has four "drone" mounts that can mount phasers, drone racks, plasma-Fs. It should not be NEARLY as tough as a battlecruiser. In SFB/FC, it has ~80 internal boxes. So it can take around 80 damage points (after the shields are down) before blowing up. (For perspective, a standard photon torpedo does 8 points if it hits.) A Fed BC or Klingon C7 has ~125 internal boxes. So it should have around 66% of the durability of a BC/C7, or 80% as durable as a heavy cruiser (Fed CA, Klingon D7).
From what I've gleaned from the various discussions, Matt seems to be using the number of hull boxes on the ship card as some kind of proxy for ship size. Some ships, particularly Orions, will have a lot of "hull" (or hull-like boxes, like cargo) for their size, and distort the calculation. It's much better to count ALL of the boxes of whatever type and use that as a proxy for how big the ship is.
From what I've gleaned from the various discussions, Matt seems to be using the number of hull boxes on the ship card as some kind of proxy for ship size. Some ships, particularly Orions, will have a lot of "hull" (or hull-like boxes, like cargo) for their size, and distort the calculation. It's much better to count ALL of the boxes of whatever type and use that as a proxy for how big the ship is.
DaemonBorn
Mongoose
Just noticed something else the mobile base is tougher at 228/114 then the battle station at 150/50 is this right? Also shouldn't the mobile base's weapons all be turret arc?
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
228/114 shields/hits for the Mobile Base? No, that really sounds like an error.
As for the arcs, some of the weapons' arcs are blocked by the mobile base itself, so not all should be turret arc. I think some phasers *might* be turret arc, others would have 270* arcs in the ACTA system.
Edit: come to think of it, 228 seems like an enormous amount for shields on ANY unit. If it uses All Power to Shields, it's rolling 22 dice. :shock:
Iron Domokun said:
I'd have to check the rulebook but I think thats Damage and Cripple rating?
I assume that cargo ships in SFU are absolutely huge too given their damage points..............
Likely simplification to give all stations turret arc as Katadder says they can't move - it worked well previously......unless they are supposed to have dead spots when you can just sit and blow them out of existance. As in B5 some of the stations have only S/R weapons (reletively speaking) so you can sit outside range and bombard them......
I think the mobile base's phaser-1 fire arcs are right, vis-a-vis FedCom. The MB is a kit of parts and as Terry says, it's own structure blocks some of it's fields of fire.
It can't •move• in FC, but it can •rotate• at a fixed rate. The number of shield points seems too high relative to the Battle Station, though.
It can't •move• in FC, but it can •rotate• at a fixed rate. The number of shield points seems too high relative to the Battle Station, though.
Iain McGhee
Mongoose
Well, shields for the BATS is 30, 24 for the Mobile Base (significant since you get 1 more die when using Boost Shields) and of course the BATS is much, much more heavily armed. Hull's 150 for the BATS and 228 for the Mobile Base, not that sure how they compare in SFB etc for mass since I've only one of their SSDs.
Iapologisedon4chan
Mongoose
Iron Domokun said:
I'm beginning to wonder, was anything outside of the main empires (Feds, Klinks, Roms, Gorns and Kzinti) playtested? I think calculating the cargo spaces as part of the damage points is a mistake at least.
There's no way a 150 point ship is supposed to have as many damage points as a Battlecruiser, certainly not when it already has a 6+ stealth save. Or that a small freighter should be as tough a Dreadnaught.
At this point we should probably be glad Orions didn't also get a Cloaking device option.
Iain McGhee
Mongoose
Why shouldn't you count cargo boxes ? It's more mass so it'd take more damage to destroy, even if it's only by virtue of having a large amount of "padding".
Same thing with the SAL (presume that's the 150-pt ship you mean), it's fairly big so it gets similar damage points to a cruiser. Does seem a bit under pointed, although it does have more limited firing arcs than most cruiser types (except if loaded up with drones, and they can be evaded or shot down).
Same thing with the SAL (presume that's the 150-pt ship you mean), it's fairly big so it gets similar damage points to a cruiser. Does seem a bit under pointed, although it does have more limited firing arcs than most cruiser types (except if loaded up with drones, and they can be evaded or shot down).
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
You should count cargo boxes.... along with every other box, treating them all equally. All of the boxes absorb damage. One box = one Federation Commander/SFB "damage point", if you like. If you only count hull/cargo, then the proportions are out of whack and you get ridiculous results that just don't agree with the "SFU database" that all the games are built on. Example: Small freighter, has 25-30 combined hull and cargo. But pretty much nothing else. Total boxes of all types ~40. A good blast from a frigate will blow it up. Heavy cruiser: far fewer hull boxes, 10-15 depending on faction, but many more other boxes (warp engines, weapons in particular). Total boxes ~100. A good blast from a frigate will maybe get close to 50% damage, if the shield is already down.
The SAL is light cruiser-sized. Around 80 boxes/ FC damage points. That, plus stealth, should make it almost as hard to kill as a CA.
I think the error in translation is the differing way that ACTA and the other SFU games handle the degradation in capabilities as ships take damage. ACTA treats "damage to the structure of the ship" and "reduction in capabilities" separately, as damage points and critical hits, respectively. The SFU combines the two. If (for example) your warp engines suffer some damage, that not only reduces the amount of power you generate it also brings your ship closer to destruction.
I'm sure that many NA players don't see the problem. "So what if there are inconsistencies? This is ACTA, not SFB or FC, right? You can't make ACTA into SFB!" The results in each game must be consistent, for licensing reasons (I believe) and probably other reasons. The results must be comparable, even if the method that you use to get there is radically different. So when a frigate unloads an alpha strike into a freighter, that freighter should be dead. An Orion Salvage Cruiser should fight an enemy light cruiser on roughly even terms. And so on.
Similar threads
