[Gen] General forum request, feel free to ignore

[Spence]

Hey all, I’m back. I expected a little kick back, but not this much. I was going to say I didn’t mean that all SFB/FC should stop, because that is not what I meant. But after rereading my post, it did sound like that. Sorry about that.

I was really meaning to say this. Please try to stay on topic and answer the question, especially when it is a specific one about the actual rules. Speculation and discussions about how things should/can/will work as compared to SFB or FC are interesting and do make good reading. Just not at the expense of the actual reason for the initial post. That is why I mentioned using tags such as [SFB] and [ASTA:SF]. If a question is asked about something, such as the cannonade discussion, tagging it as [SF/SFB/ACTA] Cannonades lets everyone know that the thread will be wandering over hill and dale as you discuss and compare the three systems. But if the thread says [ACTA:SF] Cannonades then the newer players, who may have never even seen SFB/FC can find it, and know that it will stay on topic, that being ACTA:SF.

I didn’t intend to single out anyone or wave a stick at anyone. I feel I should apologize to anyone that took it that way, it wasn’t intended.

It is just that it was becoming almost impossible to locate a thread that actually talked about ACTA:SF

And by the way. Is it ACTA:SF or SF:CTA?

And I shut up now....

 

[Jean]

I've been told by The Powers That Be that is is ACTASF.

 

[Jean]

I am beginning to see a trend that disturbs me. I asked the guys from the SFU to dial it back and they really have.

Now I am starting to see aggressive, in your face, "don't want no stinkin' SFU" posts creeping into the Mongoose forum. I'm asking the ACTA folks, our hosts, to dial that back a bit. Like it or not, ACTASF has its roots in the SFU. Simply declaring that you think there is a mistake, based on your knowledge of the Real World, is not sufficient. It needs verification from SFU documentation that it is indeed a mistake. We may have nicknamed ships Floppsy, Moppsy, and Cottonntail in a story regarding a group of ships evacuating a species of intelligent bunnies whose language included lots of double letters. Announcing that the ships names are not spelled correctly because everyone knows that it is Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail would be a mistake in that instance. Unless you cite SFU documentation when when you find what you think is an error regarding to SFU history, then you are simply making an assertion that you believe to be true. It isn't proof that it is true.

If you think someone is pulling in stuff inappropriately, why don't you use a PM to contact that person? No one likes being chewed out in public.

Remember that our SFU culture is about openness and sharing. We have over 30 years of history that SFU folks share with new people to bring them up to speed. It is deeply ingrained in us to share. It is part of our culture. To be slapped in the face and told to go away is one of the worst things that can happen to an SFUer. Please do try to be considerate as the cultures of ACTA and the SFU try to blend into what should be a rich, strong, diverse culture.

With respect,

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

Aye, I do not consider myself part of the "SFU Old Guard" (I own some of my dads old books, but have never really played the games) but I suddenly remember why I stopped visiting this forum back when I played B5:ACTA 1st edition. :?

If you people see an off-topic post, instead of being a back-seat mod and getting all snippy, why not instead simply report the post as off-topic and let the real moderator do his job if he feels it necessary? If you must make a comment, do it in PM, complaining and whining about someone posting off-topic is just as off-topic a post.

At the very least, be civil and polite. A bunch of old-school 80s wargamers being over-eager to explain the workings a game-universe they clearly love is far less of a turn-off to new people to this game (people vested in neither company's prior products) than a bunch of people who, while not unjustified in their frustration, let it translate to rude comments, borderline personal attacks and snide behavior.



Basically what I'm asking is, see an off-topic post? Report it to a mod if it angers you that much and/or write a polite PM to the off-topic poster requesting that they avoid going off topic.

 

[H]

I have a pm to reply to regarding this, so I will do so, and thanks to the chap who sent it. But I'm out. It's nice to see people involved, but the snide comments (which existed long before I posted on this) and smug superior attitude of some people is pathetc, and the fora have lost their mostly friendly aura. I am less than impressed at some of the comments received about Matt and mongoose. I am far from the biggest fan, but this tie up brings the game forward and to a new group of fans, and if you don't like it, then go play fed commander and use the adb forums, its simple. IF you are genuinely excited by sf cta, then get on board, support it and stop whinging. I was told my post made it seem like a them and us, sadly that the way a lot of people have approached this, so it makes it bloody hard to welcome new players andc posters, before complaining about the acta people, look in the mirror. You ALL have to male thos work, and good luck to ya.

 

[Jean]

H, with the evidence gone that shows how an SFU person was treated by an ACTA person, you are right, I sound like a whiny witch. All I want is for everyone to treat people with respect. Many of the SFU people ARE excited by ACTASF and they want to play it. Many of the complaints in other topics did NOT come from known SFU customers. I want this forum to welcome the SFUers because I think it will make a stronger community. Our BBS will welcome the ACTA players and there will be civility there as long as I am the mod and sys admin.

Before you leave the forums and never look back, may I suggest that you check back here in a month? By then, the worst of the culture clashes between the different groups should be worked out and we should be all pulling together to better enjoy ACTASF.

With respect,

 

[Ben2]

I was also less than impressed with some of the posting in the last few days.

While I'm an ACTA player now, back in my school days we played SFB, and the first brush I had with game design was writing a quick play version of SFB that you could play in half an hour. SFB was what got me into thinking about the mechanics of wargames, about playability vs realism and the relationship between the two, and it taught me the importance of attention to detail in rules writing. I went on to play B5W at uni, and write some of the published material for it, but without SFB in my youth, I'd just have been a 40k gamer.

There is no chance of getting the gaming group I occasionally get to visit into SFB because of the learning curve, but ACTA is a simple, quick play system that I can get people into so I have opponents.

The partnership between Mongoose and ADB secures the future of ACTA, because there are two wargaming licences that are worth big money because of the intellectual properties behind them, Star Wars and Star Trek. Now George Lucas has never allowed a Star Wars wargame (though there was a tabletop mass battle supplement for the D6 system RPG) and the Next Gen/DS9 background is unlikely to get a proper airing as it is with Wizkids, but the TOS style ships in the SFU background are enough for most people. In non-GW terms it's a very lucrative product line.

It's been stated more than once that ACTA:SFU is meant to be an accurate representation of the source material, so people are going to raise the differences between the two in errata threads, because they probably are errata.

I realise I may not have made any friends posting the Tractor Beam thread or my post in the conversion issues thread, and if I'd wanted my dog properly in the fight I should have emailed Matt about helping about eight months ago. I'm raising those points to get them errata'd and clarified, because the rules set is solid but there are some loopholes that can be exploited by some players that need to be closed.

If people have issues with posting, they need to take it to PMs. Creating an atmosphere of hostility will mean players avoid the boards, when what any healthy game needs is an active player base that do raise valid criticism as well as praise, so that lessons can be learned from every rule book published or miniature produced in order to improve following products.

These boards are usually very civil, but the last few days, with the Mongoose staff not lurking them and LBH not around, people have got a bit aggressive, and that needs to stop.

 

[katadder]

wouldnt see this in the NA community
but then the NA community is being swamped by SFU and will be dead by the end of the year at this rate.

 

[billclo]

wouldnt see this in the NA community
but then the NA community is being swamped by SFU and will be dead by the end of the year at this rate.

We've repeatedly asked for a separate forum for you guys, but Mongoose isn't interested apparently...which is a shame.

 

[Sgt_G]

wouldnt see this in the NA community
but then the NA community is being swamped by SFU and will be dead by the end of the year at this rate.

We've repeatedly asked for a separate forum for you guys, but Mongoose isn't interested apparently...which is a shame.

Well, to be fair, they are on Christmas break ... or working overtime to catch up on production of the new minis.

 

[katadder]

to be fair the new forums were asked for a week before xmas, and NA was supposed to get its expansion around September, but it has been delayed 6 months due to ACTA:SF.
which seems to be a sign of things to come

 

[Sgt_G]

A bit off-topic, but is there a Buy & Sell topic anywhere? I could be intersted in ACTA:B5 books (no minis) if the price isn't totally stupid.

 

[Da Boss]

We don't have a stickied thread as such - could put a thread in the "other minatures" section as thats where the ACTA: B5 stuff tends to be these days. There are often a few books floating around on ebay - but a word of warning there were a numebr of editions - you want if you can the 2nd Edition (the last one produced) which has bright red covers (there are 3 books in the set- Rules, Fleet book and Powers and Principlaities) - you can get away without the last but it does enhance the game.

Also check out the resources section - for instance there are several on like "fleet viewers" so you can have a look at ship stats etc - although they may be a bit confusing as ACTA: SF has some quite different rules for damage, weapons and movement.

 

[Iain McGhee]

A bit off-topic, but is there a Buy & Sell topic anywhere? I could be intersted in ACTA:B5 books (no minis) if the price isn't totally stupid.

If you're quick there's a few second edition rulebooks on Amazon at their original price. That version had a separate fleet lists book, but there's a cut-down version in the main rulebook that covers the more common ships from several major races (and the rest can be found in the player resources section).

 

[Sgt_G]

What was the original price??

 

[Iain McGhee]

Round about the $20 mark I think. Some shops are selling them at 4-5 times that :shock:

 

[Apep]

CTA:B5 - Babylon 5 Space Combat 2nd Edi (MONG 8027) - $24.95
CTA:B5 - Fleet List 2nd Edi (MONG 8257) - $34.95

Prices according to book covers - If memory serves I picked them up for about £20-25 each from Static Games, Glasgow

 

[Sgt_G]

Well, Amazon had three B5 core rulebooks with list price of $19.95, $126, and $209. Don't bother looking for the one at $19.95 ... it's on the way to my house.

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

Congrats on the find. Makes me glad to still have my first edition materials.