ACTA - SF Errata
- Thread starter Digger
- Start date
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
Then the playtesters got it wrong
Plasma-D racks: yes, these should have defensive capabilities vs drones to be SFU-consistent.
If you're going to give the Texas-class armour, then reduce its damage points a bit to compensate rather than increase points IMO. Although many players might prefer it just as it is, since the effects of armour seem to be negligible.
Leader variants of frigates etc: Agree. These ships are not fleet leaders (although they do have improved command facilities). Their mission is to lead squadrons of similar ships as part of the battle group in a combat formation, taking some of the load off the fleet flagship. CQ bonuses make sense.
Clanger
Mongoose
Incorrect
The actual wording is that the + 2 is to the Stealth roll and not the actual Stealth Rating. So if a Romulan is Cloaked a roll of 1 is always a hit to get through Stealth no matter the bonus. A Romulan who is Engaging Cloak is still Stealth 4+ but gets + 2 to its Stealth roll.
Being in Dust Cloud makes it harder to hit a ship not easier.
Random thoughts that are my own opinion.
C8 and any other dreadnought in the game should have the command trait. They are all Comanche Rating 10 ships in the SFU wiether or not they have Flagbridges on their SSDs.
Dreadnaughts should not have Lumbering Traits as it prevents them from High Energy Turning which they can in the SFU. Lumbering should be used on units like tugs or battletugs and maybe Battleships.
All Romulan Ships espically the Frigates and Destroyers (I am look at you Snipe) may need their points reduced to reflect the loss of the Carronade Ability. ADB struck down one of my Call Out Noted on the based that is on the errata list already so it is coming.
Texas Class should have the armoured trait to maintain its feel. If it gets the armour trait it will need to lose Hull hits to compensate
C8 and any other dreadnought in the game should have the command trait. They are all Comanche Rating 10 ships in the SFU wiether or not they have Flagbridges on their SSDs.
Dreadnaughts should not have Lumbering Traits as it prevents them from High Energy Turning which they can in the SFU. Lumbering should be used on units like tugs or battletugs and maybe Battleships.
All Romulan Ships espically the Frigates and Destroyers (I am look at you Snipe) may need their points reduced to reflect the loss of the Carronade Ability. ADB struck down one of my Call Out Noted on the based that is on the errata list already so it is coming.
Texas Class should have the armoured trait to maintain its feel. If it gets the armour trait it will need to lose Hull hits to compensate
Greg Smith
Mongoose
The movement example is wrong. The text explains that the connie has to move 6" before its 2nd turn (correct), but the picture shows 2" (incorrect).
@ Nomad
Yes they should - but no harm in spelling that out in a FAQ sheet.
I think that there may be need to two elements to the errata reporting: Game issues /actual typographic errors and SFU issues?
The lack of Command on the Kzinti/Klingon Dreadnought is one of the latter as is the possibility of Caronades not being able to be used by the Romulans - Matt did not say it was actually changing in his previous post. Both of these require points cost reassessments whilst not actaully being errors in the game, but rather to fit in with the SFU.
As well as Dreadnoughts: Lumbering also affects a large proportion of the Gorn Fleet and also the Kzinti battlecruiser. Again taking it away requires a reassessment of points I should think.....
Texas Class - seems fair - either leave it as is or loose some damage and give it armoured. The flavour text just talks about it being durable.
Yes they should - but no harm in spelling that out in a FAQ sheet.
I think that there may be need to two elements to the errata reporting: Game issues /actual typographic errors and SFU issues?
The lack of Command on the Kzinti/Klingon Dreadnought is one of the latter as is the possibility of Caronades not being able to be used by the Romulans - Matt did not say it was actually changing in his previous post. Both of these require points cost reassessments whilst not actaully being errors in the game, but rather to fit in with the SFU.
As well as Dreadnoughts: Lumbering also affects a large proportion of the Gorn Fleet and also the Kzinti battlecruiser. Again taking it away requires a reassessment of points I should think.....
Texas Class - seems fair - either leave it as is or loose some damage and give it armoured. The flavour text just talks about it being durable.
Da Boss do you mean me and not Nomad? As far as the points I spelled out though they may be my own opinion they are points I feel should be errataed.
Just reread Lumbering. This might be a case where another trait like say cumbersome should be added with all the penalties of lumbering except the high energy turn. That way Gorns and dreadnaughts still suffered the 1 turn or a high energy turn not both in a turn and lumbering can still effect tug and auxillaries when they come out.
Just reread Lumbering. This might be a case where another trait like say cumbersome should be added with all the penalties of lumbering except the high energy turn. That way Gorns and dreadnaughts still suffered the 1 turn or a high energy turn not both in a turn and lumbering can still effect tug and auxillaries when they come out.
Da Boss said:
This is why I am loathe to get into FC-CTA debates - just because a ship has Armour boxes in FC does not automatically translate that it should have the Armour trait in CTA. The smaller Romulan ships needed the trait to stay alive long enough to function, the Texas simply did not and if it _had_ been given the trait, the points value in comparison with the Hevay Cruiser would have been out of whack. The ship was supposed to be durable. It already is, so we didn't give it the trait.
If you play Romulans that cannot use Carronades, then you won't be departing from the FAQ that will likely go up in January. I don't believe there are any other immediate changes (the FAQ will however reiterate things like cloaked ships wandering into dust clouds, etc).
On the Romulan Eagle ships the Battlehawk, Snipe-B and King Eagle have the armoured trait, but the War Eagle does not. Is this an accidental omission?
The Federation Old Light Cruiser has armour in SFB. Should it have armour in ACTA or is the hull rating sufficient in relation to, say, the DW, to represent the additional armour.
Some people may say armour is a bit useless but I've played a few games of ACTA and armour means you take 16.67% less damage from weapons with less than Devastating +2.
The Orion CR has the Tholian DD heading, but that's just a typo.
The Federation Old Light Cruiser has armour in SFB. Should it have armour in ACTA or is the hull rating sufficient in relation to, say, the DW, to represent the additional armour.
Some people may say armour is a bit useless but I've played a few games of ACTA and armour means you take 16.67% less damage from weapons with less than Devastating +2.
The Orion CR has the Tholian DD heading, but that's just a typo.
Teaches me not to refresh the page before hitting post.
Should the War Eagle have armour then?
On the one hand the King Eagle does, but that is a 175 point ship with 12 damage points, so it is basically an eggshell with a hammer. The War Eagle is 140 points, with the same damage score and is again, an eggshell with a hammer. Armour gives the King Eagle effective damage of 16/17 because of armour soaking damage.
Is the War Eagle missing armour due to a typo, or is it a design decision that is reflected in the Battlehawk being just 20 points less?
Should the War Eagle have armour then?
On the one hand the King Eagle does, but that is a 175 point ship with 12 damage points, so it is basically an eggshell with a hammer. The War Eagle is 140 points, with the same damage score and is again, an eggshell with a hammer. Armour gives the King Eagle effective damage of 16/17 because of armour soaking damage.
Is the War Eagle missing armour due to a typo, or is it a design decision that is reflected in the Battlehawk being just 20 points less?
DaemonBorn
Mongoose
I'm not familiar with SFB or FC but is the romulan Firehawk supposed to have a damage stat of 28/10? As the Firehawk, Novahawk and Royalhawk all have 40/13.
Iain McGhee
Mongoose
I'd have expected it to be the same or just slightly different to the Nova- and Royalhawk variants, not 12 points lower.
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
From what I've seen, CTA:SF ships usually seem to have their damage points based on twice the number of hull boxes as their Federation Commander counterparts.
Sparrowhawk: 11 Hull boxes
Firehawk: 14 hull boxes
Novahawk: 18 hull boxes
Granted I don't have the CTA:SF book yet. But all the stat blocks I've seen in the mongoose previews have followed this trend.
Sparrowhawk: 11 Hull boxes
Firehawk: 14 hull boxes
Novahawk: 18 hull boxes
Granted I don't have the CTA:SF book yet. But all the stat blocks I've seen in the mongoose previews have followed this trend.
That would give the Sparrowhawk 22 damage points in ACTASF. It has 30, meaning that, counting shields, it takes 54 hits to eliminate it, as against 38 for a KR (or 49 if you only shoot at the forward shield arc).
Huh? KRs/D6s are not renowned for their durability, but the Sparrowhawk's a smaller ship...
And the Sparrowhawk gets more hits than it's big brother, the Firehawk?
The damage points are what they are, I think it's best to accept them in all their oddity - a Kzinti FF gets 50% more hits than an F5? Really? - and move on.
Similar threads
