Changes for 3rd edition ACTA

[Hans Olo]

But I'll keep on playing!

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. . .

The critical hit list is certainly one of the things that made a lot of people in my area quiting ACTA. Especially after the release of 2nd ED, where the crits got even more devastating.
Also the altered FAP system of the 2nd edition has not many friends around here, not to mention the new Beam rules. In fact the only way you get someone to pic up another game of ACTA in around here is to house rule all the issues mentioned in this poll! :!:
2nd ED and its changes or, lets say its incapability to fix certain problems of 1st ED was a devastating blow to the player community in my area and made almost everybody abandon the game for a while, at least as long as it will get fixed someday.
It's sad but the truth.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

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.

If you're going to feel cheated just because you didnt spend every single point for a 1,000pt game, you probably have some sort of psychological problem going on that it isn't ACTA's duty to fix.
Instead we have the FAP system, where within a priority level ships can be spread over a fairly wide band of values, just because it's hard to balance a ship by adjusting values, and FAP doesn't let you adjust the value to the ship. Lets say that a ship's worth can be up to 20% more or less than the average value of the PL. This means that in a battle equivilent to a 1,000pt battle, one side could be playing with 800pts, and the other with 1,200pts. That's broken.

 

[katadder]

But I'll keep on playing!

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. . .

The critical hit list is certainly one of the things that made a lot of people in my area quiting ACTA. Especially after the release of 2nd ED, where the crits got even more devastating.
Also the altered FAP system of the 2nd edition has not many friends around here, not to mention the new Beam rules. In fact the only way you get someone to pic up another game of ACTA in around here is to house rule all the issues mentioned in this poll! :!:
2nd ED and its changes or, lets say its incapability to fix certain problems of 1st ED was a devastating blow to the player community in my area and made almost everybody abandon the game for a while, at least as long as it will get fixed someday.
It's sad but the truth.

ok the FAP split wasnt so good (dunno why it was changed) but the rest of 2e really wasnt as bad as you say. alot of stuff was fixed, and the crit system is no way as devastating as 1es where you can lose all your weapons too easily etc. it only got worse for more advanced races in that they can lose traits, but then the more modern tech gets generally the more there is can go wrong with it so this feels right to me.

 

[Hans Olo]

Maybe the crits are not that much more devastating as in 1st ED but they have still to much impact on the games. Ant it's harder now to repair them despite the all hands to deck SA, because it is more likely to get a crit that hinders ore completely denies your ability to repair or make a special action.

2nd Ed should have weaken the impact of crits on the gameplay but that did not happen in the best case, in my opinion it even got a bit worse.
The 4+ Beam was a rule i disliked from the start, the old rules where not that bad. I understand that this should give the Hull 4 Ships a little more chances to survive a beam hit. Now the funny thing is that most ships that used to have Hull 4 in 1st ED went up to Hull5 in 2nd ED. The Hull 4 Ships that remain are in most cases patrol level and have so few hit points that they still die after a decent beam hit, so what was the change good for?

Beams are now more effective against hull 6 than against any other Hull value what only makes the low priority ships (with beam weapons) more powerful what again, together with the initiative system gives swarm fleets an advantage. No good fix in my opinion.

Maybe most of the players around here where so disappointed with what 2nd Ed has changed, because it fixed not a single issue that 1st ED had.
It is somehow not better but different, and that is not enough if you hope and expect a change.

 

[skavendan]

Did precise apear in 2E? Or has it always been in?

 

[Greg Smith]

Precise has always been in.

1e crits included lose all weapons, and more chances to have speed dropped to zero combined with no special actions. However crew hits had no additional effect and they were a godsend.

Pre-SFoS 5,6 reduced crew to 0, and 6,6 was automatic explosion.

Trait loss is a new thing and affects some races more then others.

While a number of criticals have gotten worse, the two really nasty ones have been eliminated - No Weapons - or reduced in number and effect - Speed 0, no SA.

 

[Methos5000]

The problem with some of the new crits though is that some were made much worse compared the SFOS equivalents. 6-5 & 6-6 were nasty enough without adding permanent trait loss to them (for non-ancients anyway) adding in the trait loss should have reduced that damage they do.

I think Vitals should be repairable too maybe a higher repair check or something but right night you have an equal chance of rolling a 1-1 crit are you are a 6-6 but the 6-6 is much, much worse.

Or perhaps the crit table should be a 2d6 roll since crits have to be rolled individually anyway (or should be). It would allow really nasty vital hits but they are also harder to get. You can put engines and weapons in the more common rolls, as they would be the easier ones to severly damage since they are on the outside of the ship already, Crew and reactors, being internal, would be nearer to the extremes.

I had a battle against a friend of mine where he had a Drakh Mothership that:
*Couldn't move (-4 speed with a No Damage control vital hit)
*-15AD on ALL it weapons so beams were offline and secondaries were about useless)
*had 2 arcs offline where are my ships were lined up

and there were crits that were caused by fighters breaking through the GEG. Alot of that happened fairly early in the fight (the offline arcs and permanent damage control loss) which left the ship useless for most of the fight.

Now granted I rolled alot of crits against him, but I was using alot of fighters also (I had 5 Brikortas and a Brokados) but that No Damage Control Vital hit made his ship completely useless. If the vital hit could have been repaired or that would have been a much harder crit to land the battle could have gone much differently for him.

 

[Target]

Thats why the first thing we ever house ruled/ modded was the crit chart admittly this was 1st ed. Everything should be repairable. We still 6-6 ship explodes crits but fighters can't cause them, we limited them to first d3 areas eg engines & weapons on our modded chart (it's not the one i posted earlier,that just things i thought could improve the official one). Even this little change made our games far more enjoyable.

 

[Locutus9956]

But I'll keep on playing!

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. . .

Sorry Matt but I'm afraid you're overlooking a few things here.

First off ACTA HAS changed a great deal already since it's original incarnation. The beam rules for example have already changed massively since 1st ed and yet I don't hear anyone saying 'it's not ACTA anymore' Personally I think the old Beam rules were better in most respects but they did have the issue of coreing low hull ships rather too easily but thats another topic....

The reason alot of folks continue to play though more than anything else is that theyve invested alot of time and money in the game and like the community as a whole, not that they necessarily think the game is the best thing since sliced bread anymore. I for one think ACTA was at it's best back with the tournament lists after SFoS but I still enjoy the game and and am sticking with it in the hope that the flaws that bug me (and alot of others) will get resolved at some point.

As for the other suggested changes:

1) Beam - I dont think a radical change is needed, just a tweak to make them less random.

2) Initiative - I'm sure the problem with swarm fleets and initiative sinks MUST be apparent to the developers, I'm not sure what to suggest here and I'm certainly not sure a big reworking of initiative is the answer (and personally I don't have a big issue with boresights as some folks seem to but I do think things could be improved here somehow.

3) Ships - Theres not many. I wouldnt even go as far as the '20' suggested and can only really think of maybe about 10 ships that could do with some minor adjustments to bring them more in line with where they should be but tweaking ships CERTAINLY wont make the game 'not ACTA anymore'

4) FAPs - I'm with Burger here. I still actually LIKE the FAP system in principle, ships just need balancing a bit better and the point split needs to go back to the Armageddon splits. A point system might be an easier short term solution in theory but when you get right down to it the FAP system IS a point system its just a fixed value. It's not even like you really get diminishing returns for buying down now like you used to. (Incidentally this is one of the reasons it's now such a no brainer to buy down for swarms now, at least in the old FAP splits you were basically 'short changing yourself' if you bought ships more than 1 PL lower)

 

[MongooseMatt]

First off ACTA HAS changed a great deal already since it's original incarnation. The beam rules for example have already changed massively since 1st ed and yet I don't hear anyone saying 'it's not ACTA anymore' Personally I think the old Beam rules were better in most respects but they did have the issue of coreing low hull ships rather too easily but thats another topic....

But the Beams are not a fundamental part of CTA - they are, effectively, a bolt on trait.

I for one think ACTA was at it's best back with the tournament lists after SFoS

If you have the books, you can still play it

2) Initiative - I'm sure the problem with swarm fleets and initiative sinks MUST be apparent to the developers, I'm not sure what to suggest here and I'm certainly not sure a big reworking of initiative is the answer (and personally I don't have a big issue with boresights as some folks seem to but I do think things could be improved here somehow.

I would split this in to two issues. Boresights I would keep separate from this debate. As for swarm fleets and 'initiative sinks'. . . I don't actually have a problem with this on a base level, and would suggest that when one fleet outnumbers another, this is a natural advantage. Now, whether those swarm fleets need adjusting is another topic, which we will come back to on No. 4.

3) Ships - Theres not many. I wouldnt even go as far as the '20' suggested and can only really think of maybe about 10 ships that could do with some minor adjustments to bring them more in line with where they should be but tweaking ships CERTAINLY wont make the game 'not ACTA anymore'

More or less agreed. Some ships will be getting some tweaks, others will be getting new options - still messing around with this.

4) FAPs - I'm with Burger here. I still actually LIKE the FAP system in principle, ships just need balancing a bit better and the point split needs to go back to the Armageddon splits. A point system might be an easier short term solution in theory but when you get right down to it the FAP system IS a point system its just a fixed value. It's not even like you really get diminishing returns for buying down now like you used to. (Incidentally this is one of the reasons it's now such a no brainer to buy down for swarms now, at least in the old FAP splits you were basically 'short changing yourself' if you bought ships more than 1 PL lower)

This will be reappearing in P&P!

 

[Burger]

Fantastic, I am looking forward to P&P now

 

[Triggy]

Fantastic, I am looking forward to P&P now

It's amazing what a bit (a lot) of nagging can eventually achieve

 

[lastbesthope]

2 extra WS in the original ISA fleet box for one thing.

LBH

 

[MongooseMatt]

Well, please remember that when someone next says we never listen to you chaps

 

[mollari_uk]

Sounds good. Any idea of a release date for P&P, or have I missed that somewhere else?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Around September/October.

 

[Locutus9956]

We'll I'm sold now, even if it does nothing other than jigger the FAP system back to the way it used to be then that's fine by me

 

[Foxmeister]

Well, please remember that when someone next says we never listen to you chaps

Did I hear someone say forward arc beam in the G'Quan? I'm certain I did......

Regards,

Dave
(Living in hope! - That's not Hope, Kansas!)

 

[Rynar]

I'd like to see more Crusade EA era ships (even if models have to wait), the PL system more balanced or replaced by a point based system and a system for redunancy would be very welcome to give the larger ships some more survivability.

E-mines are also too nasty, being able to hit fighters and stealth ships is a tremendous advantage, even tough they don't crit.

 

[AdrianH]

I'd like to see a Shadow fighter which can actually do something useful.

A Skirmish level ship and a decent Battle level ship wouldn't go amiss. And just to show that I'm not biased, while we're plugging gaps, a Raid level Vorlon ship as well.