ACTA - SF Errata
- Thread starter Digger
- Start date
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
I assumed it was the default, which is that a weapon (or anything else that rolls Attack Dice) does 1 hit per die unless it has Multihit. So 1 hit for each die that rolls 4+.
I agree, they are normal attack dice so for each dice in the explosion roll a D6
1-3 miss
4-5 hit - shields protect as normal, if still present
6 hit and ignore any shield present
any hits then roll on the attack table
so potentially big explosions are nasty
re bases - nothing about ignoring sections of the critical table - they would just ignore anything that refers to movement since they have the immobile trait? Most of the results are generic enough that they could refer to a station rather than a ship?
1-3 miss
4-5 hit - shields protect as normal, if still present
6 hit and ignore any shield present
any hits then roll on the attack table
so potentially big explosions are nasty
re bases - nothing about ignoring sections of the critical table - they would just ignore anything that refers to movement since they have the immobile trait? Most of the results are generic enough that they could refer to a station rather than a ship?
In the SFU, all phasers of each type (p-1s, p-2s et.c) are identical, so I'd have to say it's a typo.
I'm puzzled as to why the Kzinti CL and the Klingon F5 have no tractor beams? Particularly when the KF5R *does*.
Also, the fluff reference to the Kzinti DN's 'cargo boxes' makes sense to old SFB/FC hands but is probably confusing everyone else.
I'm puzzled as to why the Kzinti CL and the Klingon F5 have no tractor beams? Particularly when the KF5R *does*.
Also, the fluff reference to the Kzinti DN's 'cargo boxes' makes sense to old SFB/FC hands but is probably confusing everyone else.
I just assumed the Romulans changed things round on their versions of the ship
Same as they installed Command Capabilities on the Behemoth (which should really have the unique trait) and lots of extra shuttles
Put an extra transporter on the KR (with less Marines!) and same on the Kr Comand Cruiser
then again they may in some cases be errors............
I figured out the cargo boxes but yes its a bit odd phrasing for a different game
Same as they installed Command Capabilities on the Behemoth (which should really have the unique trait) and lots of extra shuttles
Put an extra transporter on the KR (with less Marines!) and same on the Kr Comand Cruiser
then again they may in some cases be errors............
I figured out the cargo boxes but yes its a bit odd phrasing for a different game
I might note that, for the purposes of comparison, most (but not quite all) of the FC Ship Card versions of the ships found in ACtA:SF are available over in the Commander's Circle section of the ADB website. (Only the Squadron Scale Ship Cards are relevant here; the Fleet Scale versions are abstractions of those.)
There is one thing which, I think, seems to be getting lost in translation, when it comes to discussing which aspects of a ship should remain consistent across games (to also include SFB and Starmada) and which should be up for re-consideration in order to better fit the game engine it's being deployed in.
On the one hand, there are certain things that are already up for removal between SFB and FC/Starmada that aren't too much to worry about; a case in point being Klingon security stations.
In SFB, the loss of these stations runs the risk of sparking a mutiny on most Klingon ships; in FC and Starmada, where there are no Klingon Mutiny rules, these boxes are deleted when Klingon SSDs are converted into Ship Cards. So it's no skin off anyone's back to see Klingons make do without security stations in ACtA:SF.
On the other hand, there are a number of "core" systems, the "nuts and bolts" of a modern fully-functioning starship, that most empires (save for the most exotically alien ones, perhaps) are expected to have by the very nature of their designs. This is important not just in larger fleet batles, but in smaller solo or squadron patrols, where the ships are expected to be at least minimally capable in several areas, so that they can perform the myriad of duties their missions demand of them.
Things like cargo spaces (for those ships which have them; when they are, they are usually on there for a reason), transporters, tractor beams, probes (in most cases), shuttles, labs, etc. These are things which a ship may not need all the time, but which are a part and parcel of what makes them ships, not merely glorified attrition units.
So, if a Klingon F5 has a tractor beam, two transporters, a shuttle, two lab boxes and a probe launcher on the SFB SSD, it will have the same boxes on the FC Ship Card, the same special notes supporting these features on a Starmada Ship Card, and should have the same traits in ACtA:SF.
(When it comes to Point Value adjustments, some of the Starmada versions of the ships end up with divergent costs compared to what they have in SFB or FC; in that event, it's treated as part of the process of inputting the required variables into the conversion process, and seeing how a functionally-equivalent starship comes out on the other side.)
And in the case of the Kzinti DN, the reason for it having a large cargo bay is (if I'm not mistaken) because it's supposed to be able to carry a supply of replacement drones for the various ships under its command; so that it can help replenish their stocks when away from a friendly base in the interim (and in the absence of an allied tug or tactical transport) between specific encounters.
There is one thing which, I think, seems to be getting lost in translation, when it comes to discussing which aspects of a ship should remain consistent across games (to also include SFB and Starmada) and which should be up for re-consideration in order to better fit the game engine it's being deployed in.
On the one hand, there are certain things that are already up for removal between SFB and FC/Starmada that aren't too much to worry about; a case in point being Klingon security stations.
In SFB, the loss of these stations runs the risk of sparking a mutiny on most Klingon ships; in FC and Starmada, where there are no Klingon Mutiny rules, these boxes are deleted when Klingon SSDs are converted into Ship Cards. So it's no skin off anyone's back to see Klingons make do without security stations in ACtA:SF.
On the other hand, there are a number of "core" systems, the "nuts and bolts" of a modern fully-functioning starship, that most empires (save for the most exotically alien ones, perhaps) are expected to have by the very nature of their designs. This is important not just in larger fleet batles, but in smaller solo or squadron patrols, where the ships are expected to be at least minimally capable in several areas, so that they can perform the myriad of duties their missions demand of them.
Things like cargo spaces (for those ships which have them; when they are, they are usually on there for a reason), transporters, tractor beams, probes (in most cases), shuttles, labs, etc. These are things which a ship may not need all the time, but which are a part and parcel of what makes them ships, not merely glorified attrition units.
So, if a Klingon F5 has a tractor beam, two transporters, a shuttle, two lab boxes and a probe launcher on the SFB SSD, it will have the same boxes on the FC Ship Card, the same special notes supporting these features on a Starmada Ship Card, and should have the same traits in ACtA:SF.
(When it comes to Point Value adjustments, some of the Starmada versions of the ships end up with divergent costs compared to what they have in SFB or FC; in that event, it's treated as part of the process of inputting the required variables into the conversion process, and seeing how a functionally-equivalent starship comes out on the other side.)
And in the case of the Kzinti DN, the reason for it having a large cargo bay is (if I'm not mistaken) because it's supposed to be able to carry a supply of replacement drones for the various ships under its command; so that it can help replenish their stocks when away from a friendly base in the interim (and in the absence of an allied tug or tactical transport) between specific encounters.
I can see where you are coming from - it is unclear at this point if some of these discrepencies are errors or intentional?
For instance the F5 seems to be missing a lot of the tech available on the smaller E4.....and its Romulan counterpart.....
The F5 does have a probe launcher - all ships have at least one unless the ship has the Probe 0 trait (bit of an odd way to do it as it means ships can never loose this ability - but hey....)
Cargo bays - thats fine - but IMO if either needs to have something in game or just remain part of the fluff text. I made up a Fleet Auxilary trait for ACTA:B5 use in campaigns and support ships that gave campaign bonuses for certain fluff abilities - medical frigates, reclamation ships etc. It either needs to be something tangable or fluff - which is just as important and fulfills the need for the "feel" of a ship IMO. Its not hard to make up rules if it is required............
Point adjustments would be required if some of the suggested changes to bring the ships in the book more in line with the SFU are made. As I understand it alot of time and effort was spent trying to make it so but I guess things slip through.
Apart from scanning monsters - what do labs do - what do they actually represent on a ship - does it vary from Empire to Empire? I was suprised how many "Science" Labs the Klingon warships have - especially with the fluff saying things like: "The D7 is a combat ship throughout, exploration and rescue are left to unarmed auxilaries". Although again this seems a bit odd given the hostile universe..... would not a mix of both be more likely as is reflected in the ships actual stats.
The SFu canon seems to be both inflexible and flexible - eg: it totally must be the same in each game except when its not:
Shuttles have weapons in one version and not the other
Klingons can mutiny but they can't
Command means different things in different games.....
Ships must all travel at the same speed - except the ones that don't
tech slosh is a bad thing - except when its not.....
it can be quite confusing
For instance the F5 seems to be missing a lot of the tech available on the smaller E4.....and its Romulan counterpart.....
The F5 does have a probe launcher - all ships have at least one unless the ship has the Probe 0 trait (bit of an odd way to do it as it means ships can never loose this ability - but hey....)
Cargo bays - thats fine - but IMO if either needs to have something in game or just remain part of the fluff text. I made up a Fleet Auxilary trait for ACTA:B5 use in campaigns and support ships that gave campaign bonuses for certain fluff abilities - medical frigates, reclamation ships etc. It either needs to be something tangable or fluff - which is just as important and fulfills the need for the "feel" of a ship IMO. Its not hard to make up rules if it is required............
Point adjustments would be required if some of the suggested changes to bring the ships in the book more in line with the SFU are made. As I understand it alot of time and effort was spent trying to make it so but I guess things slip through.
Apart from scanning monsters - what do labs do - what do they actually represent on a ship - does it vary from Empire to Empire? I was suprised how many "Science" Labs the Klingon warships have - especially with the fluff saying things like: "The D7 is a combat ship throughout, exploration and rescue are left to unarmed auxilaries". Although again this seems a bit odd given the hostile universe..... would not a mix of both be more likely as is reflected in the ships actual stats.
The SFu canon seems to be both inflexible and flexible - eg: it totally must be the same in each game except when its not:
Shuttles have weapons in one version and not the other
Klingons can mutiny but they can't
Command means different things in different games.....
Ships must all travel at the same speed - except the ones that don't
tech slosh is a bad thing - except when its not.....
it can be quite confusing
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
IIRC, in star fleet battles, Labs had some minor combat utility. Namely they could identify incoming drones as specific types and potentially ID other threats (like what variant that hull coming at you is).
Been a long time since I cracked an SFB book though, I could be wrong.
Been a long time since I cracked an SFB book though, I could be wrong.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
In ACTA, labs are used in the Recon Run and Explore a Brave New World scenarios.
Specifically;
There are Cargo boxes on the Kzinti dreadnought (but few if any other non-transport ships) in SFB & FC. In SFB they can, in very big games or campaigns, carry additional missile ammunition. In FC, they're just 'padding' - free hits to absorb damage.
In SFB, aside from scenarios involving scanning monsters and other targets, labs are useful in combat for identifying the nature and targets of incoming seeking weapons. The target of a drone or plasma torpedo is recorded secretly by the firer when it's launched, and not knowing where the thing is headed complicates the defender's task. Drones can have a variety of warheads and armour packages, meaning that they can do from nought to twenty-four damage points on impact, or maybe launch sub-munitions or shoot phasers at you instead (or sometimes, as well). They can take anywhere from three to eleven damage points to shoot down.
Your labs can warn you about that before it happens; what you don't know actually will get you killed.
In FC, labs (and, thankfully, drones) don't do any of that. Labs are, in most scenarios, more padding.
The SFU canon has it's oddities, and I suppose some of us have lived with them for so long we don't notice them anymore; there are elements of 'that's just the way it is'.
There are Cargo boxes on the Kzinti dreadnought (but few if any other non-transport ships) in SFB & FC. In SFB they can, in very big games or campaigns, carry additional missile ammunition. In FC, they're just 'padding' - free hits to absorb damage.
In SFB, aside from scenarios involving scanning monsters and other targets, labs are useful in combat for identifying the nature and targets of incoming seeking weapons. The target of a drone or plasma torpedo is recorded secretly by the firer when it's launched, and not knowing where the thing is headed complicates the defender's task. Drones can have a variety of warheads and armour packages, meaning that they can do from nought to twenty-four damage points on impact, or maybe launch sub-munitions or shoot phasers at you instead (or sometimes, as well). They can take anywhere from three to eleven damage points to shoot down.
Your labs can warn you about that before it happens; what you don't know actually will get you killed.
In FC, labs (and, thankfully, drones) don't do any of that. Labs are, in most scenarios, more padding.
The SFU canon has it's oddities, and I suppose some of us have lived with them for so long we don't notice them anymore; there are elements of 'that's just the way it is'.
I took a moment to dig out the SFB rules covering Klingon mutinies; and the background text in the introduction points out that the reason why (most) Klingon command ships don't have separate flag bridges is because the same command facilities are integrated into their regular bridges. (While other empires would want their admirals and squadron commodores to be at a remove from the command ship's own captain, in order to concentrate on the wider tactical situation, those in the Klingon Deep Space Fleet are expected to personally command their flagships during combat.) The only Klingon ships that have flag bridges at all are the diplomatic cruisers; and that is because (in SFB) they cannot mutiny (since their crews are hand-picked for loyalty).
Oh, and heavy command cruisers, like the Klingon C7, are built specifically to operate as command ships; so if they don't have them already, they ought to have the Command +1 trait, too.
(I do like the idea of having separate rules for "leader" ships, which only improve their squadron's initiative, as opposed to "command" ships which influence the entire battle force.)
Oh, and heavy command cruisers, like the Klingon C7, are built specifically to operate as command ships; so if they don't have them already, they ought to have the Command +1 trait, too.
(I do like the idea of having separate rules for "leader" ships, which only improve their squadron's initiative, as opposed to "command" ships which influence the entire battle force.)
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
Shuttle weapons, mutiny, command: Not important core rule, just chrome. Left out of FC to streamline the game.
Ship speed: Core rule. Tactically, they are all capable of travelling at the same speed. It doesn't make sense to give them an arbitrary speed rating (as was done in B5 and NA). They will all move around 20 hexes per turn while arming weapons to standard levels in SFB, and a little faster in FC. Fast ships have fewer weapons to arm and larger engines than normal so have a little more power for movement.
Tech slosh: Yeah, I could certainly do without drones on Federation ships. Tech slosh is bad when it doesn't add interest to the game, or serve some useful purpose in an SFU game. Klingons and Lyrans get maulers because they are on the offensive in the early General War and "need" them for base busting.
The Legend
Mongoose
When a ship is crippled it states that the turn stat is doubled and the ship can only move 6 inches. Now this means under the movement rules that the vast majority of ships cannot turn when crippled. For example the Constitution class has a turn of 6 which is doubled to 12 when crippled. That means it can't turn as it can only move 6". Am I missing something here?
The Legend
Mongoose
Nerroth said:
Unfortunately not. It specifically states in the movement section that you can't count movement from a previous turn towards the current turns movement allowance for a turn.
Hence my confusion.
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
That seems a bit excessive.
Iron Domokun
Mongoose
I think it was Rambler mentioned that once a ship is crippled it may as well use Maximum Warp Now! and disengage because it's pretty much toast at that point.
Similar threads
