Fleet Update #1 and Other Star Fleet News

[Nerroth]

The difference between an -A and -E escort is only worth noting in SFB, due to the difference between limited and full Aegis; the -Es came first, and had limited Aegis, while the -As get full Aegis installed later on.

Since there is no difference in Aegis fire control systems in FC or (for the time being) in ACtA:SF, any of the DWA names listed there should be good as DWEs, too.

Is the FC lack of difference to do with time frame, or simplicity? Ultimately the difference is relatively small isnt it - for translation I'd have thought the difference was the range of weapons under the Aegis control (says he risking his neck on his memory with no rulebook here). That said if FC ignore the difference then carry on in ACTA....those as want an SFB type game should be able to knock 5 or 10 points off for the limited weapon set of Limited Aegis ships.

Simplicity. (So far as I recall, the FC rules are closer to limited Aegis in SFB terms.)

 

[scoutdad]

Actually, in Fed Comm escorts are allowed to perfrom defensive fire against "impacted" seeking weapons within 4 hexes of the escort and ADDs may be used within 2 hexes.

In Star Fleet Battles the difference is in number of opportunities to review fire results and select new targets.
With Limited Aegis (*E ships) you have two opportunities to review fire results and retarget.
In other words: You have three incoming drones and a Phaser-G available. You taget one of the Gs four pulses on each drone. After firing those three pulses, you can select a different target for the remaining pulse. If all three drones are killed, you can hold fire... fire at a drone targeted on a different ship... or fire at the fighter bearing in on your ship.
With Full Aegis (*A ships) you have FOUR opportunities to judge fire.
Say you have one drone targeting your ship, so you fire a single pulse at it and roll a 6. Oh no! It's still there, so I fire a second pulse at it. OH NO! Its still there, os it must be a two-space, multi-warhead drone. I fire a third pulse at it. Now its dead and I still have one pulse remaining and can now hold fire... fire at a drone targeted on another ship... etc.

 

[SneakyPete]

Great stuff, I like most of the new ships, but I did have a question about the F5W.

Is it a typo in the pdf or does this Klingon ship really have more Phaser 1's shooting backwards than forwards. I can not imagine this is correct. From the third line:
Phaser-1 / 18 / A, P, S / 3 / Accurate +2, Kill Zone 8, Precise

That makes 2 AD of PH1 shooting forward and 3 aft. I did a search of the forum and found no mention of this. I know the F5 has 3D of P2 shooting aft but what is the point of making it PH1 as such a weak hull without the shield bonus boost makes it the last place you want an enemy ship.

Also I agree with earlier posts on the Gettysburg, I can not see using it vs a Battlecruiser variant when it comes to point value, now if it had Command +2 like the Mars and maybe less offensive AD of some sort it would be very interesting.

 

[Zarathustra Suicune]

Or if the shipyards hadn't offered star fleet BOGOF on the new Jearsey....
To be honest I think the Gettysburg would be good, though I'm thinking the pts for it and new Jearsey got mixed up.

 

[Myrm]

In Star Fleet Battles the difference is in number of opportunities to review fire results and select new targets.
With Limited Aegis (*E ships) you have two opportunities to review fire results and retarget.
<snips>
With Full Aegis (*A ships) you have FOUR opportunities to judge fire.

Yes with this I thought it was simplest to just ignore multiple firing opportunities for consistency with existing time compression - so I assumed the translation would eliminate that. I'd be happy with any Aegis to house rule a number of firing options for weapons under Aegis control - and that would be the ideal translation.

AM I misremembering or did Limited Aegis have a smaller set of weapons it controlled or was it all the same?

 

[billclo]

Great stuff, I like most of the new ships, but I did have a question about the F5W.

Is it a typo in the pdf or does this Klingon ship really have more Phaser 1's shooting backwards than forwards. I can not imagine this is correct. From the third line:
Phaser-1 / 18 / A, P, S / 3 / Accurate +2, Kill Zone 8, Precise

That makes 2 AD of PH1 shooting forward and 3 aft. I did a search of the forum and found no mention of this. I know the F5 has 3D of P2 shooting aft but what is the point of making it PH1 as such a weak hull without the shield bonus boost makes it the last place you want an enemy ship.

I believe the F5W sheet is correct. If you go over to the Fed Com website, and look at the ship record sheets, the F5W has the rear phaser-2 converted to phaser-1.

Where the rear phaser-1 are very useful is if you get the enemy on the line between the Fore and Port/Starboard arc, weapons in both Fore and Port/Starboard can fire. Thus if you line up your enemy on that line, you get the 2 disruptors, 5 Phaser-1, and a Phaser-3 if you want it.

Lining up the enemy on that line is a common Klingon tactic, and is frequently used by the E4, F5, D6, D7, C7 series of ships. It's less useful on the D5/D5W/C8 series ships.

There is some risk in using that tactic though; if an enemy ship can slip in behind that line, you get hit in the flank shield. Whereas if the line of fire goes down the line between Fore and Starboard/Port the Klingon decides which shield it hits (flank or front).

 

[Lawdog1700]

Agreed that there is a problem with the points values on the CB and the BCJ. The BCJ is at least as capable as the CB and is generally tougher and more capable, yet is 10 less points? Someone should look at this.

 

[billclo]

There are........issues with the current Scout rules and as I understand it they are undergoing a process of revision.

Um yes. I wasn't impressed with them the one time I tried them out. Too easy for equal EW factor scouts to cancel each other out, net result being wasted points on a scout when you could have had a standard warship for less points.

Why is that a bad option? OK players may feel their scout is no use, but then their opponent has exactly the same issue.....is this not similar to saying 'well my opponent took a dreadnought too so they cancelled each other out'.

I think the nature of the initiative system wherein one side's scout ends up "activating" and using all it's Scouting actions before the other one, and then the enemy's scout can easily just cancel out what the first scout did is a big issue.

Proposed solutions:
1) Have the actions for all scouts written down at the start of the Attack Phase and all are revealed simultaneously.
2) Allow the scout to use one of it's Scouting Actions when a friendly ship is activated, and not require that the scout use ALL of it's actions at the same time.

 

[Greg Smith]

We found that early in the game both scouts cancelled each other out, but as things progressed, each side found things they would rather be doing with their scout and didn't automatically cancel the enemy.

 

[Zarathustra Suicune]

How badly has the snow effected the shipping of the Gettysburgs and mars's?

 

[scoutdad]

We found that early in the game both scouts cancelled each other out, but as things progressed, each side found things they would rather be doing with their scout and didn't automatically cancel the enemy.

Ditto for us.
The first two or three games with scouts, we were cancelling the effects of the first scout to act - but now, we've found that there are usually other things to be doing with them.

You want to have some fun? Play a 3,000 point game with 2 scouts and 2 or 3 escorts per side. Then try to figure which target takes priority! :?

 

[bcantwell]

Will the scout rules be reprinted in the supplement that is supposed to be coming out this year or should I go ahead and get the journal that has them?

Thanks

Brian

 

[Da Boss]

As I mentioned the Scout rules are I belive under revision - but no idea if and when they will appear in a finished version.

 

[Rambler]

I wouldn't say under revision. I would say they are in playtesting.

To be honest I real do not expect the playtest set currently out will be changed nor do I think we will see them rereleased in another format before book2 goes to print. Could they be tweaked some more yes. Could I be wrong about rereleasing them, yes but, I really doubt it. They work now. Do they fall short of the Full Electronic Warefare you see in SFB yes but they also do not mirror Scouts as seen in other ACTA systems. ACTASF Scouts are thier own animals and work in that system.

 

[scoutdad]

Ditto what Dal said.
The scouts do work...

There might be small tweaks to them in ACTASF2 - but i wouldn't expect anything until then.