ACTA / SF Errors - pease read start of thread before posting
- Thread starter Da Boss
- Start date
Greg Smith
Mongoose
The Agile trait does say it gets 90 degree turns whenever it turns.
There is answer in the Wierd Situations chapter that seems to bear out that Agile gets you a 90 degree turn in all situations.
There is answer in the Wierd Situations chapter that seems to bear out that Agile gets you a 90 degree turn in all situations.
re the erratamsprange said:
As I mentioned on the ADB board, if ships are being changed, points values do IMO need to be looked at.
As I understand it the Fed Com points value was a starting point and they were then adjusted from play testing results with some ships going up or down depending on how they played under the new rules system.
In my view the most important element is that the "missing" SFU specifc items were not part of playtesting those ships and so were not assessed as part of the process.
Some of the adjusments suggested - Command +1 on Dreadnoughts for instance have consdierable implications to both the abilities of the ship and any fleet that they are in. If these are merely added to the ship stats without adjusting the points value then there is a problem. The scale of the problem varies considerably with the weapon, trait or rule adjustment but it is there. A lab here or there is not going to massively break the game - suddenly adding powerful traits like Command to ships for free is a issue.
If the ships need to be changed to come back to partity with their FC/SFB versions - thats fine, but I do feel strongly that the value of each ship that is so adjusted needs to be considered anew as they have not been playtested as such.
Otherwise there is the likely possibility that there will need to be a second set of errata to rebalance the ships so adjusted which if it can be avoided is a good thing?
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
I believe any missing traits and stuff were already accounted for in the FedCom points cost, which was used as the basis of the CTA:SF cost. We probably don't need to worry about them much.
EXCEPT for Command+1 however. In FedCom, a Flag Bridge doesn't really do much besides provide you with another ship control facility to avoid getting "beheaded". In CTA:SF it does have a tangible improvement (a rather important one) so yes, this could be an issue. However, given previous discussions and Matthew's earlier comments, I have a feeling its unlikely any additional ships will be getting the Command+1 trait.
EXCEPT for Command+1 however. In FedCom, a Flag Bridge doesn't really do much besides provide you with another ship control facility to avoid getting "beheaded". In CTA:SF it does have a tangible improvement (a rather important one) so yes, this could be an issue. However, given previous discussions and Matthew's earlier comments, I have a feeling its unlikely any additional ships will be getting the Command+1 trait.
As I understand it the Fed Com costs were used as a starting not end point - playtesting set the final values.
As you say some things won't matter that much - odd lab here, tractor beam there but add or take away guns or add or loose Command, Anti-drone etc and then thats a points loss or gain that really should be accounted for
As you say some things won't matter that much - odd lab here, tractor beam there but add or take away guns or add or loose Command, Anti-drone etc and then thats a points loss or gain that really should be accounted for
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
That would depend on how much the points were actually adjusted. I'm not sure how often they were after taking the FedCom points for many ships and comparing them to the CTA:SF points costs, a lot of them come out in the neighborhood of FedCom*1.25.
Quite likely
The Command trait is the big one I feel..........slapping that on all Dreadnoughts for free is a mistake.
Changing weapons/arcs is likely to mean minor adjustments of 5-15pts, which seem small but may be the difference between making a ship a vaiable alternative to its stablemates or not..
The Command trait is the big one I feel..........slapping that on all Dreadnoughts for free is a mistake.
Changing weapons/arcs is likely to mean minor adjustments of 5-15pts, which seem small but may be the difference between making a ship a vaiable alternative to its stablemates or not..
Well, for "free" would be a mistake, but as dreadnoughts are meant to be a fleet's flagship, not putting Command trait on them at all is a mistake, in my opinion. And as the BCH was the "poor man's dreadnought", they too should have Command trait. But nothing smaller than a CC / NCC should have Command trait.Da Boss said:
AdmiralGrafSpee
Mongoose
I've just been comparing the Fed Comm squadron scale cards (http://www.starfleetgames.com/federation/Commanders%20Circle/sc.shtml) with the ACTASF rulebook for the Kzinti. The following ships have errors with their phasers:
War Destroyer (turreted ph-1's should be ph-3's)
Frigate (Reduce AD of Ph-3's from 2 to 1)
Battlecruiser (change turreted ph-3's to ph-1's)
Dreadnought (not sure if it was a design decision but the Ph-3 arcs are larger than the PH/SH that they were given)
Also, just a question - how was whether a ship is "lumbering" or not determined? I just ask because the Kziniti BCH is a real brute to manuever.
-Tim
War Destroyer (turreted ph-1's should be ph-3's)
Frigate (Reduce AD of Ph-3's from 2 to 1)
Battlecruiser (change turreted ph-3's to ph-1's)
Dreadnought (not sure if it was a design decision but the Ph-3 arcs are larger than the PH/SH that they were given)
Also, just a question - how was whether a ship is "lumbering" or not determined? I just ask because the Kziniti BCH is a real brute to manuever.
-Tim
