[ACTA:SF] Fighters question

[Allerka]

So, we've got rules for fighters coming out (with preliminary rules already available). Since I haven't heard a word about any Starline 2500 fighters in the works, I picked up a couple packs of the 2400 ones to use in the meantime.

I find myself wondering, though. Moving anywhere from 12-40 fighters at once could get a bit cumbersome, not to mention it seems unlikely one would split them off into individuals to go any which way anyway, so what if I mounted multiple fighters to a single large base? Say, 3-4 fighters on a base, i.e. a regular fighter wing. I suspect it would make that stage of movement and fighting much more simple to roll for small groups of fighters, instead of individually, and it shouldn't be difficult at all to mark on the bases which fighters have been destroyed during a fight.

Thoughts?

 

[Nerroth]

Preliminary rules?

I've seen the unofficial threads up and running, but nothing from Mongoose's own side of things so far. (Unless something went up just recently?)

For my part, I feel that sticking to the same one-fighter-per-base setup seen in A Call to Arms: Noble Armada is the best option here; it makes it easier to handle both casual carriers (such as most Hydran ships) as well as "true" carriers, plus it is the closest match to how things are done in SFB, FC, and the Star Fleet Starmada adaptation*.

Plus, from what I gather from how people have been handling ACtA:NA, the setup seems to not be too unwieldy in terms of on-table play.


*The way it worked for the Hydrans in the Admiralty Edition rules, at least; I don't know how the Nova Edition ruleset for Starmada will re-work the rules for Stingers.

 

[Allerka]

http://actauncut.wordpress.com/index/ is where I saw them.

If they work fine on a one-to-one base, that works then, I guess. I'll just need to find some proper bases for them, then... I guess the hexagonal ones for the 2400 minis works for now.

 

[Nerroth]

Oh, those are Ben2's unofficial files; he has a number of threads about them here on the boards.

In terms of bases, perhaps Mongoose have a way to offer the flight bases they use for shuttles (and ACtA:NA fighters) separately?

 

[Allerka]

The small metal ones with the little triangles? Yeah, I commandeered those for my shuttles, but it would be nice to buy packs of those, as they'd work fine, I think. I even mixed in some of the shorter GW flight stems so my shuttles aren't all just sitting on the "ground".

 

[Ben2]

In the thread where I posted them I did say about five times that they are unofficial. Since official ACTA fighter rules are at least a year and a bit away, the unofficial rules are a good place to try out ideas and see what works, what doesn't, and experiment.

Once everyone has tried breaking them, and we've got it so fighters a) don't slow down the game and b) don't dominate so everyone has to have them, then I will tidy the rules up and see if Matt is interested.

Having chatted to Matt he is of the same view as me, fighters shouldn't be a compulsory choice where if one player doesn't have them and the other does, then the player with fighters wipes the floor with his opponent.

I want a faithful conversion from SFB but without the problems associated with SFB fighters.

The basic rules aren't likely to be that different from what eventually gets published, as they are very close to the Noble Armada fighter rules which work really well. What will go through a number of changes is the ships and fighters to be added to the fleets.

I will be revising the ships and fighters in the next couple of weeks, trying to fine tune them.

I need a way to handle submunitions that doesn't cause paperwork, which means doing custom A5 or A6 carrier plus fighter ship cards for them, so you can laminate them and handle it all with a pen and a tissue to track what you've fired, fighter damage, etc.

It would mean numbering your fighters though.

I also want to revise what I've done in line with the changes on how carriers in fleet lists are handled in Fleets of the Fading Suns, which is better than how they are handled at the moment.

Just to reiterate, what I am doing is totally unofficial.

 

[Ben2]

Also on the timescale front, I am significantly improved in health terms, and have been filling up Matts inbox last week with articles, ideas, etc as I'm well enough to use the computer, but not well enough to be back doing the level of community activity I was doing before I fell ill.

However I'm now back doing 11 hour days at work while still munching opiates like smarties, so I don't have the time and energy available that I did before I was ill, or in the lucid periods when I was ill (when I got these draft fighter rules and ship lists written).

Hopefully getting good news from the doctor tomorrow.

What I may do is throw out a playtest pack with supporting materials giving each race a carrier, an escort and a couple of fighters with the ship cards they need in order to test the way I'm handling fighters out.

If I were to create a playtest pack, would people be willing to give me playtest data?

 

[Myrm]

http://actauncut.wordpress.com/index/ is where I saw them.

If they work fine on a one-to-one base, that works then, I guess. I'll just need to find some proper bases for them, then... I guess the hexagonal ones for the 2400 minis works for now.

Those are totally unofficial - one of the players on the forum has generated those (Im doing similar for PFs and tenders actuallyand will also stick those up here, which Matt has said I can do).

Either way it would be dangerous at the moment to assume that how Ben has done his rules and so the attendant basing is how they will turn out in the future. It may go that way, but it isnt guaranteed.

I, for one, am still hoping for a multi fighter base as the standard unit although one fighter one base will definitely work given what has been produced in the unofficial thread. Given such a beastie would involve certain amounts of abstraction and for me lowers the workload a lot, I am unworried about issues such as casual carrier fighters and the unusual wings as I can see a simple way of fettling them in - especially since anything I hoped for that way would involve a level of standardisation in fighter selection.

 

[Allerka]

Alright, I didn't realize at first that these were just player-made rules. I guess we have some time to discuss it further and see what happens.