[ACTA:SF] Looking for clarification about Escorts

[billclo]

I am looking for some clarification about the new Escort rules and Defensive fire.

Here's the ship layout:

A= attacker
D= defending escort, 3" from target ship.
X=target ship

Under the Intensify Defensive Fire Special Action, the rules say that "For the rest of the turn, the ship may contribute it's phasers and drones to the Defensive Fire of any friendly ship within range and arc of the weapons."

Under the new Escort Rules:
"Due to the specialised electronics suite in this vessel, this ship may contribute its phasers, drones and plasma-D weapons to the Defensive Fire of any friendly ship within 8” and within the arc of these weapons"

Okay, so my question is this: If the attacking ship (A) fires drones/plasmas at the target ship (X), which weapons on the escort ship (D) may fire?

1) Only weapons facing the target ship, using range 3 and accurate bonuses (X)?
2) Weapons facing the target ship, AND weapons facing the attacking ship (A)? My reasoning is that the seeking weapons have to pass close by the defending ship (D) and weapons facing the attacking ship ought to be able target them at close range. If weapons facing the attacking ship (A) can fire, what is the range? Range to the attacking ship at the moment of firing, close range (short range, with accurate bonus)?

Personally I would rule option 2, but I wanted to get an official type of ruling.

 

[Lincolnlog]

Billco,

This isn't an answer but just a tactical opinion. Since the escort is going to be a constant impediment to taking out the heavy primary target, the escaort in this situation would be the logical target for the attacker. Not saying this situation couldn't occur, but would be unlikely. The escort would either be firing in defense of itself or would be shielded behind the target.

We'll have to wait for an official ruling from the rules guys, but I would say that if the escort is between the attacker and defender, all weapons would bear in defense of the target. I would say KZ doesn't apply to defensive fire (thats the way we play for simplicity).

I would add one question to those you asked, if ADD cannot be used for Escort, then can Fed Dual Racks as ADD or would it be 1 AD eliminates 1 AD? I'm assuming the Fed's can still use the dual capability, which once again gives the Feds a capability denied the other empires.

Bob

 

[Myrm]

We have always decided/assumed that defensive fire to other ships is done last second as a response to hits about to occur, previously the ships have ignored the flying missiles as not about to hit yet/not yet a threat/something else is going on given that seeking weapons in ACTA are not on the board (say the labs didnt give the target info yet).

So we have always made the aiming point (and all arcs and range) for defensive fire - the target - so option 1 in your selection. It seemed to best fit the keeping it simple concept and the most reasonable assumption set for seeking weapons not actually flying on board - otherwise we have all sorts of secondary issues to deal with conerning longer range phasers and drones flying.

SO Option 1 is how we play, based on 'doctrinal/decision making limits' not 'actual drone placement'

As an aside - Kill zone has been clarified as not counting but accurate does (cant remember if that errata or FAQ but its one of them)

 

[Myrm]

I would add one question to those you asked, if ADD cannot be used for Escort, then can Fed Dual Racks as ADD or would it be 1 AD eliminates 1 AD? I'm assuming the Fed's can still use the dual capability, which once again gives the Feds a capability denied the other empires.

They get no special capability - if a Fed uses that rack as ADD it just gets ADD the ADD trait for a bit, ie it cannot be not used in defensive fire for protecting other vessels. Fed Racks still have to fire defensively on other ships on the 1 for 1.

 

[Greg Smith]

As an aside - Kill zone has been clarified as not counting but accurate does (cant remember if that errata or FAQ but its one of them)

It's in the rules, page 16.

 

[billclo]

Yeah, it's weird that the escort ship cannot use the ADD in defense of other ships. Some ships lose much of their usefulness because of this. Specifically ships with high ADD trait numbers; in the base game they can use those plentiful ADD in defense of other ships.

Ships like the Kzinti EFF, why bother taking it?

I would think that the Feds could use the combined drones as ADD in defense of the mounting ship, or in drone mode to take out enemy drones at a 1 for 1 basis. I would MUCH rather see the Fed combined rack or any other ship mounting ADDs be allowed to use ADD mode in defense of another ship though.

I would also like to see escorts be allowed to see the results of their initial firing, and then fire once more (2 times total) before seeking weapon impact. Heck, in the source game, escorts with Aegis could fire up to 4 times sequentially, judging the results and firing again if need be.

Myrm, I could live with your reasoning in the name of simplicity, if it were a standard warship, ignoring seeking weapons not targeted on itself but firing on them as they approached their target. However, part of the expensive Escort equipment ought to be more sophisticated defense mechanisms. Even current-day Aegis radar/defense systems will fire upon a missile targeted on another ship, not just itself. The Aegis system used a combined "basket" of missiles, and the ships all share targeting information in a tactical datalink network environment.

***edit, found out that even non Aegis-equipped ships may fire missiles into the Aegis targeting "basket" and they will accept targeting information from an Aegis ship. So essentially ships that don't have Aegis like the old Spruance class that had the modular VLS system could fire SM (anti-aircraft/missile) missiles in support of other ships and the other ships would take over the targeting duties. Pretty cool system, really.

It would make no sense for a future warship to not include such capabilities as standard equipment, but that's part of the legacy of the source game being designed in the '70s before that capability existed in the real world.

 

[Greg Smith]

It definitely seems that the Plasma-D and high ADD ships lose out as escorts.

 

[archon96]

My understanding is that the ship you are defending has to be in the weapons range and arc to be protected. Therefore all of my escorts will be behind the ship they are defending. As far as Plasma D it works alot like a drone thats why it gets the ADD trait or can be used to shott down drones. If you read the fluff about them they are preloaded plasma canisters.

 

[billclo]

My understanding is that the ship you are defending has to be in the weapons range and arc to be protected. Therefore all of my escorts will be behind the ship they are defending. As far as Plasma D it works alot like a drone thats why it gets the ADD trait or can be used to shott down drones. If you read the fluff about them they are preloaded plasma canisters.

I am not sure about putting your escort ship behind the ship it is defending. If you put it in front of the ship it is defending, you get half it's weapons generally speaking, to defend with. Same with putting it behind the ship it is defending. But if you keep the escort between the enemy and the ship being defended, it gives you more options. You can use facing weapons to defend the target ship, and use the remaining non-facing weapons to either defend yourself or attack the enemy ship(s). Or you can charge the enemy ship(s) at close range. Some of the escort ships, like the D5E, Sph-M, Kzinti MEC become pretty dangerous at close (sub-8" ) range. Under 8", a phaser-1 is better than a standard disruptor, so getting close to the enemy and phaser-hosing an enemy ship becomes an attractive option at times. And that Sph-M at 2" centerlined on you is SCARY, with all those phaser-3s.

If you put the escort behind the target, you lose half of your weapons that are not facing either an enemy ship nor the ship you are supposed to be defending. Neither does it encourage the enemy to fire on the escort; they'll just put all their fire on the main target and ignore the escort most of the time, I would suspect.

 

[Myrm]

Yeah, it's weird that the escort ship cannot use the ADD in defense of other ships. Some ships lose much of their usefulness because of this. Specifically ships with high ADD trait numbers; in the base game they can use those plentiful ADD in defense of other ships.

Ships like the Kzinti EFF, why bother taking it?

I think the problem is range. With a very short SFU range you'd be climbing over other ships in ACTA to be in range. Theres a case to be said for having a base ot base rule allowing escorts and IDF firing ships to use ADD on the ship they are physically escorting. Its a simple rule, and its similar to some fighter defensive rules from the B5 ACTA expression.

Myrm, I could live with your reasoning in the name of simplicity, if it were a standard warship, ignoring seeking weapons not targeted on itself but firing on them as they approached their target. However, part of the expensive Escort equipment ought to be more sophisticated defense mechanisms.

I agree its an issue - realistic style play would have your option 2 certianly, and in SFB you do it in real time as the drones zip past - but the stems from not having seeking weapons on board and opens a whole can of worms. Either a lot more rules need introduction, or we need to shrug it off as one of those things lost in translation....

 

[archon96]

Maybe im missing something. The ship you are defending must be within range and weapon arc. If you are in front of it then it is not in youre forward arc which is were a large majority of the weapon are. My thought is too have it about three inchs behind and to one side of the ship being excorted. This way it gets the benefit of being protected and has you close enough that you can run up and attack if need be.

 

[Myrm]

Maybe im missing something. .

Sort of, you are missing the SFB/FC mindset where drones and other seeking weapons track steadily across the board slowly compared to other weapons fire and can get fired at easily from all arcs as they pass through taking in some cases multiple turns to reach their target.

This is completely lost in translation in the way seeking weapons and defensive fire works in ACTA, where seeking weapons zip across the board unharmed and all defensive fire is set to occur essentially at one point in both time and space - the target.

Hence suggestions like Bill's that if you have an arc of fire to the shooter you could fire and it might be a better translation.

Im used to both systems and having seen both, I can certainly understand the SFB history argument but cannot solve it myself without opening a whole series of cans of worms in the way seeking weapons work (ie simple and without any markers running across the board).

 

[archon96]

agreed at least in fed com seeking was easy to either avoid or destroy. I still think with the way the rules for ACTA:Sf are that having the escort out front is not the optimal solution. As far as targets for me i tend hit the biggest thing first maybe im wrong but we play mostly time limit games and i get more points if his dreadnaught vanishes. Being mostly a Gorn player im going to have to rework my play style with escorts in the game. And on a side note any thoughts on what to bring to the party to kill that damn battleship. I wish they would hurry with the others. Being looking at the stats over and over and its a friggen tough nut to crack. Im thinking to just try and crit it to death.

 

[billclo]

agreed at least in fed com seeking was easy to either avoid or destroy. I still think with the way the rules for ACTA:Sf are that having the escort out front is not the optimal solution. As far as targets for me i tend hit the biggest thing first maybe im wrong but we play mostly time limit games and i get more points if his dreadnaught vanishes. Being mostly a Gorn player im going to have to rework my play style with escorts in the game. And on a side note any thoughts on what to bring to the party to kill that damn battleship. I wish they would hurry with the others. Being looking at the stats over and over and its a friggen tough nut to crack. Im thinking to just try and crit it to death.

I would think getting behind it, more than 7.5" away would be best. It's only got 2 Photons in the rear, and with a Turn rating of "10", it's a lumbering beast. I wouldn't want to take that BB in close action; it's probably a better idea to leave it hanging back at 12-15" firing Photons and Phasers on a target.

Let's play some games with escorts in front and back and report back how it works out. I probably won't be able to get a game with escorts in anytime until February at the earliest. But I will give it a go when I can.

 

[scoutdad]

I'm not Matthew, i dont work for Mongoose, and I certainly will not presume to know what hte correct answer will be, but I will tell you how we played escorts and what was envisioned when I wrote the rules:

There is a huge difference in how seekers work in SFB/FC and in ACTASF. In SFB/FC, the markers for the weapons slowly track across the board - giving ample opportunity to shoot them down/avoid them. In ACTASF, seekers do not appear on the board as counters - but instead immediately impact their target.
Defensive fire has been described as a last minute attempt to stop incoming weapons (think a US Navy Phalanx system).
Intensify Defensive Fire reads: "For the rest of the turn, the ship
may contribute its phasers and drones to the defensive fire of any
friendly ship within range and arc of the weapons."
Escort reads: "this ship may contribute its phasers, drones and plasma-D weapons to the Defensive Fire of any friendly ship within and within the arc of these weapons."

Neither of these items says anything about the firing/launching ship being in range... or in arc...
And that's the way we've played it... the defended ship must be in arc and within 8 inches of hte Escort.

 

[archon96]

Neither of these items says anything about the firing/launching ship being in range... or in arc...
And that's the way we've played it... the defended ship must be in arc and within 8 inches of hte Escort.[/quote]

Thats how I understood it and how I plan to play it. Just think if the big boys hammer each other then the escorts will get to do cleanup operations against other escorts.

 

[Lincolnlog]

Archon, I agree. Special capability ships become early targets in this game. They are force multipliers. If you can take out the force multiplier quickly, then taking down the defended unit becomes easier. Therefore playing the escort out front makes no sense.

Playing the escort behind the defended ship making it the bigger threat to the attacker makes more sense. Of course this all a matter of play style (tactics).

Scoutdad, I always interpreted the IDF range to with the range of the phaser or drone being fired defesively, this range being measure to the ship being defended not the attacking vessel. This may be wrong, but I have a habit of always failing IDF rolls and always making HET rolls, go figure!


Bob

 

[archon96]

I still think that IDF should also be range 8inch to the defended ship. This would create some unique fleet formations.

 

[Da Boss]

I'm not Matthew, i dont work for Mongoose, and I certainly will not presume to know what hte correct answer will be, but I will tell you how we played escorts and what was envisioned when I wrote the rules:

There is a huge difference in how seekers work in SFB/FC and in ACTASF. In SFB/FC, the markers for the weapons slowly track across the board - giving ample opportunity to shoot them down/avoid them. In ACTASF, seekers do not appear on the board as counters - but instead immediately impact their target.
Defensive fire has been described as a last minute attempt to stop incoming weapons (think a US Navy Phalanx system).
Intensify Defensive Fire reads: "For the rest of the turn, the ship
may contribute its phasers and drones to the defensive fire of any
friendly ship within range and arc of the weapons."
Escort reads: "this ship may contribute its phasers, drones and plasma-D weapons to the Defensive Fire of any friendly ship within and within the arc of these weapons."

Neither of these items says anything about the firing/launching ship being in range... or in arc...
And that's the way we've played it... the defended ship must be in arc and within 8 inches of hte Escort.

Thats how we would play it as well - the escort just needs have the defended ship in its weapons arc and be within 8" of the defended ship. The firing ships location and distance is irrelvant.

I would think getting behind it, more than 7.5" away would be best. It's only got 2 Photons in the rear, and with a Turn rating of "10", it's a lumbering beast. I wouldn't want to take that BB in close action; it's probably a better idea to leave it hanging back at 12-15" firing Photons and Phasers on a target.

Is that the Battleship with 9 dice :evil: of turreted drones? not sure being close behind it is that much protection.........

general point re the new escorts - some of whihc have a lot of those bloody drones themselves is that a mainly phaser based weapon array allows for very effective use of Power Drain......

re the OP - I would say Option 1.

 

[billclo]

Intensify Defensive Fire reads: "For the rest of the turn, the ship
may contribute its phasers and drones to the defensive fire of any
friendly ship within range and arc of the weapons."
Escort reads: "this ship may contribute its phasers, drones and plasma-D weapons to the Defensive Fire of any friendly ship within and within the arc of these weapons."

Neither of these items says anything about the firing/launching ship being in range... or in arc...
And that's the way we've played it... the defended ship must be in arc and within 8 inches of hte Escort.

Okay, so you are basically voting for option 1, wherein the escort can only fire weapons that bear on the vessel being targeted?

I still think that IDF should also be range 8inch to the defended ship. This would create some unique fleet formations.

You mean more realistic formations, wherein the ships huddle together for mutual defense?

I always interpreted the IDF range to with the range of the phaser or drone being fired defesively, this range being measure to the ship being defended not the attacking vessel.

This is the way I've been playing it as well.

Is that the Battleship with 9 dice :evil: of turreted drones? not sure being close behind it is that much protection.........

Well, you may have those 9 dice fired at you, no matter where you are in relation to the BB, maybe not. He might just want to reserve 3 dice for ADD use, else he has to burn phasers to defend himself vs seekers. For sure there's going to be some luck involved either way.