I can pretty much guarantee that due to how fundamental the changes would be - A won't happen in P&P and C will not happen as an official change at least (it may be given as a variant rule). B may happen and we're looking at it as the main way of reducing swarm fleets and D will certainly happen, at least for a number of ships.ATN082268 said:TGT said:
If the supplement basically included the changes A, B, C and D of this poll, it really shouldn't take too long to come up with it especially since a lot of this stuff has already been addressed before this poll. And the more playtesters that are used, the more the process should be quicker
Initiative and Beam weapon rule changes are as simple as changing a handful lines of text. The FAP just has to have some numbers adjusted and assuming that is done, probably only 2 dozen designs or so need to be adjusted as well.
With 3 designs to a page, 1 page for the FAP and 1 page for initiative, beam and miscellaneous rules changes, should take the grand total to around 10 pages. Download please
Sincerely,
Andrew Norris
Changes for 3rd edition ACTA
- Thread starter ATN082268
- Start date
Triggy said:
Just because it is a fundamental change doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Any time a player has more units to move than another one, the player with more units will always have the advantage. Proportional movement is probably the way to go for initiative. You could even include a clause for situations like if side A wins initiative but has only 1 ship, then side B will only have to move half their ships (rounded up).
I haven't sliced up the FAP yet but I'll certainly get back to you on it if you're interested
In any case, if you're going to leave the initiative problem where it currently is, then factor that into the revised FAP so that it takes into account the relative capabilities in additional to numerical superiority.For beam changes, I'd put a cap of double the attack dice of the weapon.
Do you want a list of units for change in their capabilities and/or priority level? I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on something when it is going to be ignored in favor of what a handful of people want...
Sincerely,
Andrew Norris
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Triggy said:
I'll be very disappointed if something isn't done to make boresight more effective - I don't think that changing the FAP table on its own will do much.
I'm very much warming to the idea of an SA to allow a F arc shot as it is very simple and should not be overpowering.
Regards,
Dave
Any initiative "fix" would alter too much of the rest of the game and that's why it won't be touched with P&P (maybe one for the future though). As for beams, it's a tricky one and some sort of compromise may be looked at but it's unlikely to be official. At the moment, Burger's suggestion looks to be the best one as it retains some of the variance but lessens it, particularly at the extremes of luck.
However, if you have ideas for the FAP structure, I'd be happy to see them. Also, yes we will take into account how the initiative structure works when valuing the ships.
If you have a list of priority ships that you'd like to see altered and your suggestions of changes then I'd be glad to see them. So long as you're aware that P&P won't alter huge numbers of ships, only those seen as particularly powerful or weak then feel free to post your suggestions.
However, if you have ideas for the FAP structure, I'd be happy to see them. Also, yes we will take into account how the initiative structure works when valuing the ships.
If you have a list of priority ships that you'd like to see altered and your suggestions of changes then I'd be glad to see them. So long as you're aware that P&P won't alter huge numbers of ships, only those seen as particularly powerful or weak then feel free to post your suggestions.
David Anla Shok'
Mongoose
Play it as it lays. Any change I might desire would be point values for the ships in addition to their "level" assignments. 
Tzarevitch
Mongoose
A couple of ships need minor tweaking (G'Quan, Demos, several Abbai ships). That's about it.
Tzarevitch
Tzarevitch
eldiablito
Mongoose
Well, I would change most of the 2-for-1 patrol ships too...
Right now, they are too good for their cost. Also, there might be a need for a drazi equivalent as well (unless the initiative system were entirely scrapped).
Right now, they are too good for their cost. Also, there might be a need for a drazi equivalent as well (unless the initiative system were entirely scrapped).
Instead of the current system, you roll a single die:ATN082268 said:
1-2: 0 hits
3-5: 1 hit
6: 3 hits
The big downside of them is that they give away a full Patrol PL ship's worth of VPs each...even with this in do people find them overpowered? I've played games against the 2-for-1 swarm and although the swarm tends to have ships left at the end, it can often lose on VPs.Tolwyn said:
Poi said:
You have to ask yourself, why?
The trouble with this poll, is that if everything suggested _was_ changed, it would no longer be CTA. FAPs are part and parcel of what makes CTA what it is. The critical hit list (someone else suggested) is _certaibnly_ what keeps many people coming back for more. . .
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
This is why I keep on saying that FAP is clung onto not because it's any good, but because it's being different for the sake of being different, and because it was an MGP idea.msprange said:
I keep playing despite issues such as FAP, not because of them. I play because the setting is B5 and the ruleset is ok enough that it doesn't drive me away. I certainly wouldn't be upset if CTA let go of certain issues and evolved to become something greater though.
Tzarevitch
Mongoose
Tolwyn said:
That never did make much sense to me, especially when some races get fighters at that price.
Tzarevitch
Foxmeister
Mongoose
neko said:
I wholly agree with these sentiments!
In my mind, ACTA has the potential to be a truly *GREAT* system, but only if the issues are acknowledged and fixed.
FAPs would be fine if there wasn't such a broad range of capability for ships within the same priority - whilst I can accept that not all things are supposed to be equal, what you should see is:
1) General purpose ships (e.g. G'Quan, Omega, etc) being at least as effective as other general purpose ships within the same PL.
2) Specialized ships (e.g. Liati, Dargan etc) having a distinct advantage in certain situations, but be clearly disadvantaged in others.
3) In the general case, a split FAP should be no more effective than a single ship at that FAP.
What we have at the moment is some specialists being far more effective than the general purpose ships in almost all situations (e.g. the Liati vs the G'Quan), and swarms being more effective than single high-PL warships.
Now I don't personally believe that it would take a 3rd edition to fix ACTA so that it does become truly great, but there does seem to be a reluctance from some quarters to even admit that problems exist!
Regards,
Dave
neko said:
You can quiet easily fix the problems with the FAP by introducing force organisation chart I wonder where I got that idea from *cough* 4*0*k*.
A force organisation chart would make people buy at least 1 of everything in the list before doubling up (obviously this idea works far better for a campaign's than a random game)
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
You might be able to make a force organisation chart that's halfway effective, but the 40k force org charts do nothing of the kind. All they achieve is to encourage people to take the minimum troops and max out on the fancy stuff. What's more, the charts penalise some armies more than others - 2 troops for a some marine forces may be half the points cost, but for armies with cheaper troops it could be only 10% of the same points cost.
Overall, I consider the 40k force org charts almost as poor an idea as FAP.
Overall, I consider the 40k force org charts almost as poor an idea as FAP.
neko said:
Heratic mentionning the inferior gaming system without coughing!
Here is the force organisation chart we are using for a upcoming campaign.
1x Each Armageddon level ship
1x Each War level ship
2x Each Battle level ship
4x Each Raid level ship
8x Each Skirmish level ship
16x Each Patrol level ship
An example full fleet would look like this
The Earth Alliance: Dawn of the Third Age ( Total 36 Battle Points )
1x Omega Command Destroyer
1x Warlock Advanced Destroyer
1x Poseidon Super Carrier
2x Omega Pulse destroyer
2x Omega Destroyer
4x Avenger Heavy Carrier
4x Hyperion Cruiser
4x Explorer Survey Ship
4x Nova Dreadnought
8x Artemis Heavy Frigate
8x Olympus Corvette
8x Hyperion Assault Cruiser
8x Oracle Scout
16x Aurora Starfury
16x Breaching Pods
16x Thunderbolt Starfury
16x Badger Starfury
16x Hermes Transport
mollari_uk
Mongoose
I for one prefer the FAP system (if tweaks were made to some ships). I don't like points systems because you have a tendancy to pick the same stuff all the time because it happens to add up to the right number of points. If you pick a different combination it might leave you short of points that you can't spend so you feel like your force is underpowered.
E.g. 100 pt force. You try to spend exactly 100 points. Some combinations can't be chosen because it puts you over by a few points. Other combinations don't get chosen because it puts you under by a few points.
These few points wouldn't make any difference in balance but you can't choose a force that might be just 2pts over. FAP gets round this by allowing small differences in ships at the same level. Obviously this breaks when some ships go too far.
E.g. 100 pt force. You try to spend exactly 100 points. Some combinations can't be chosen because it puts you over by a few points. Other combinations don't get chosen because it puts you under by a few points.
These few points wouldn't make any difference in balance but you can't choose a force that might be just 2pts over. FAP gets round this by allowing small differences in ships at the same level. Obviously this breaks when some ships go too far.
msprange said:Poi said:
You have to ask yourself, why?
The trouble with this poll, is that if everything suggested _was_ changed, it would no longer be CTA. FAPs are part and parcel of what makes CTA what it is. The critical hit list (someone else suggested) is _certaibnly_ what keeps many people coming back for more. . .
It almost sounds like you're suggesting that you either have to have no changes or all the ones on this thread. Whether you agree with it or not, the FAP is broken and it seems most people on this thread have indicated as much. I have not seen a significant calling to scrap the FAP and not replace it with anything else. If you're going to have a system to measure the battlefield effectiveness of units, then it has to be relatively accurate. Period. And I hope you don't delete this post like the last one on this subject...
Sincerely,
Andrew Norris
