How much fun is ACTA:SF?
- Thread starter MarkDawg
- Start date
Renny
Mongoose
Well, speaking for myself, i've only played the one game so far but had a ton of fun. Nothing beats seeing those iconic ships zipping around the tabletop. We took it slow because of the new rules we had to take on board but I really enjoyed it, and i look forward to the next game and getting more familiar with the rules, so I can enjoy it more.
Yes. I'd like to hear more about the fun factor too. It seems these forums are so full of discussions about how closely the game matches SFB, that people keep missing the main point... A really cool fleet level Star Fleet game!
I can't wait to get a rulebook, let alone tons of Starline 2500 minis. I'd love to see more battle reports as people get up and running.
I can't wait to get a rulebook, let alone tons of Starline 2500 minis. I'd love to see more battle reports as people get up and running.
I like it... for me it has a bit more of a "cinematic" feeling than SFB ever did... the way critical hits cascade out of control if you fail to repair them causes the destruction of each ship to sort of tell of story where you can imagine the chaos on the ship as damage control parties try and fix things.
It is more prone to luck being a major factor than SFB (except for photons... those are about the same
) but that doesn't really bother me... it still rewards tactical thinking.
It is on par with Full Thrust for complexity, but I have to say I like this system much much better.
It is more prone to luck being a major factor than SFB (except for photons... those are about the same
) but that doesn't really bother me... it still rewards tactical thinking. It is on par with Full Thrust for complexity, but I have to say I like this system much much better.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Playing Federation vs Klingon, the game flows quickly, is easy to play and is great fun.
One the races with lots of seeking weapons are added, it becomes a little bit more fiddly. It is still fun, but the game doesn't quite flow as well.
One the races with lots of seeking weapons are added, it becomes a little bit more fiddly. It is still fun, but the game doesn't quite flow as well.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
The rules are covered in 23 pages.
IMHO that is one of the great things about ACTA - the rules are simple, so it makes tactics far more important than rules.
IMHO that is one of the great things about ACTA - the rules are simple, so it makes tactics far more important than rules.
Finally got a chance to play with my 11yo son, a big Trek fan. I've never played an ACTA game, though I've played a bit of Starmada and Full Thrust.
We did Fed v. Kling, with 2xD7s going up against 2xFarraguts and 1xConstitution (which is a MEAN ship, btw).
In my opinion, the Critical system and Special Actions are what really give this game flavor. I was a bit dubious about getting damage past shields that are up on a 6 roll, but in play it works very well. The whole damage and shield system worked much better in practice than it had in my imagination. And watching your opponent roll 16 dice for two overloaded photon torpedo hits is intimidating. (He's already knocked down the last of my shields with his Phaser-1s. The crits were debilitating, and the "Escalation" effect is TONS of fun, as long as you don't mind losing sometimes, LOL.)
We played a "line 'em up and shoot 'em" scenario. I'm hoping for a more strategic scenario next time, or at least to put some space debris on the table.
We did Fed v. Kling, with 2xD7s going up against 2xFarraguts and 1xConstitution (which is a MEAN ship, btw).
In my opinion, the Critical system and Special Actions are what really give this game flavor. I was a bit dubious about getting damage past shields that are up on a 6 roll, but in play it works very well. The whole damage and shield system worked much better in practice than it had in my imagination. And watching your opponent roll 16 dice for two overloaded photon torpedo hits is intimidating. (He's already knocked down the last of my shields with his Phaser-1s. The crits were debilitating, and the "Escalation" effect is TONS of fun, as long as you don't mind losing sometimes, LOL.)
We played a "line 'em up and shoot 'em" scenario. I'm hoping for a more strategic scenario next time, or at least to put some space debris on the table.
eldiablito
Mongoose
Well, it has been a VERY long time since I was here the last time. I have only tried the game once by myself (to try and see how the rules differ from B5). I tried out 2 D7s against a Constitution class and a Kearsage Class (did anyone notice that the Kearsage has a "Reliant"?)
Some observations... I think that the critical hit system is WAY better and more fun. It will make our Constitution class federation vessels last much longer! ...And that IS going to make the game more fun than previous versions.
I found that the Klingon forward shield rule, combined with the awesome disruptors lethal! The earlier posts about long range bombarding with drones, NOT effective until one of the D7 ships lost it's anti-drone trait.
Well, the only other hope I could have for this game would be some sort of fan-based, conversion for all my Babylon 5 ships. I enjoyed that series a bit more and I have TONS of ships from nearly every race from the show. It would be a shame to leave them all in storage (as few people at my LGS want to try this game out).
Some observations... I think that the critical hit system is WAY better and more fun. It will make our Constitution class federation vessels last much longer! ...And that IS going to make the game more fun than previous versions.
I found that the Klingon forward shield rule, combined with the awesome disruptors lethal! The earlier posts about long range bombarding with drones, NOT effective until one of the D7 ships lost it's anti-drone trait.
Well, the only other hope I could have for this game would be some sort of fan-based, conversion for all my Babylon 5 ships. I enjoyed that series a bit more and I have TONS of ships from nearly every race from the show. It would be a shame to leave them all in storage (as few people at my LGS want to try this game out).
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
@ hdan - Sounds like you had fun, but "Farraguts"? The only Farragut in the SFU was a Constitution (NCC-1702), did you mean frigates? :lol:
@ eldiablito - I would say long-range drone bombardment is more of a Kzintis' favored tactic. As for transplanting the critical system in the old B5 game, that'd be a somewhat easy conversion with a few modifications.
@ eldiablito - I would say long-range drone bombardment is more of a Kzintis' favored tactic. As for transplanting the critical system in the old B5 game, that'd be a somewhat easy conversion with a few modifications.
Personally I'd prefer the D7 to the D5 on a 1 to 1 basis... It has enough agility compared to feds that the narrower disruptor arc doesn't bother me much, and I'd rather have 9 attack dice of phasers on the forward center line over the 4 attack dice of P1 on the D5.
Against Kzintis I might prefer D5s for their better ADDs though.
A D5W is definitely a better choice than a D7 if that's an option... but it's more expensive too and it might not fit in with the fleet value you're flying with.
Against Kzintis I might prefer D5s for their better ADDs though.
A D5W is definitely a better choice than a D7 if that's an option... but it's more expensive too and it might not fit in with the fleet value you're flying with.
It would also depend on whether or not you're playing within a certain era. The D5 (and Fed NCL) came on-line just before the General War and would not be available in pre-war scenarios.
Question: How big of a scenario can you play before you decide it's "not fun" anymore? I have one in mind that was too big to do in FedCmdr that might be doable in ACTA:SF.
It involves two battlefleets (eleven and ten ship) attacking a defended BATS (nine battle-damaged ships docked, ten more ships in orbit) with additional defense bases on the moons, plus the possibility of reinforcements for one or both sides entering during the battle.
I call the scenario "Turning Point" because (historical outcome) it broke the back of the invading forces by destroying the BATS as they lost a key logistics / repair facility and could not continue the war effort.
Question: How big of a scenario can you play before you decide it's "not fun" anymore? I have one in mind that was too big to do in FedCmdr that might be doable in ACTA:SF.
It involves two battlefleets (eleven and ten ship) attacking a defended BATS (nine battle-damaged ships docked, ten more ships in orbit) with additional defense bases on the moons, plus the possibility of reinforcements for one or both sides entering during the battle.
I call the scenario "Turning Point" because (historical outcome) it broke the back of the invading forces by destroying the BATS as they lost a key logistics / repair facility and could not continue the war effort.
Iain McGhee
Mongoose
I reckon that'd work well as a 2 vs 2 game. You could manage it as a two player game, since at that level you get to use the squadron rules, but IMO keeping track of more than a dozen ships crosses the line between fun and chore.
Mind you, with that many warships in play the number of combatants on each side is probably going to drop pretty rapidly :wink:
Mind you, with that many warships in play the number of combatants on each side is probably going to drop pretty rapidly :wink:
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Sgt_G said:
We can play 10 -12 ships per side easily in B5 ACTA, and usually get a game done in 2-3 hours.
The whole seeking & defensive fire would slow things up in SF ACTA, but 20 vs 20 would be just about manageable.
Iain McGhee said:
Indeed - if you use Squadrons - which is good fun - its best if all players have a read through of these rules as they do change the game a bit - having 3 Cruisers fire at once when you are not expecting it can be a bit of a shock.
sounds like a fun scenario and having it in a specific period does often make games more interesting
re the D7 - Unless you want the Command variant I think the D6 is better value - you only really loose a couple of AD (and they are phaser 2's so less important) and the 25pts gain may help to squeeze another or better ship
Although the D5W is much better ship for only 10pts more, double the Phasers 1's .Garth:
During playtesting, ewe played some 17 on 17 games using Kzinti and Romulans (with their seeking weapons) just trying to break the system. With a total of 4 players (2 per side) it only took about 2 1/2 hours to play out.
We've done many 10 to 12 ship a side games with just two players and finished in a reasonable time (~2 hours). After you learn the rules, you really don't need the rulebook, so there's no endless flipping through the book required.
TLT
To the OP:
Our group has found the game quite fun. There are a few issues that will hopefully be resolved with the forthcoming eratta, but overall - it's an awesome way to spend a couple of hours blowing up starships.
During playtesting, ewe played some 17 on 17 games using Kzinti and Romulans (with their seeking weapons) just trying to break the system. With a total of 4 players (2 per side) it only took about 2 1/2 hours to play out.
We've done many 10 to 12 ship a side games with just two players and finished in a reasonable time (~2 hours). After you learn the rules, you really don't need the rulebook, so there's no endless flipping through the book required.
TLT
To the OP:
Our group has found the game quite fun. There are a few issues that will hopefully be resolved with the forthcoming eratta, but overall - it's an awesome way to spend a couple of hours blowing up starships.
kashre said:
Cheers for that - this was _exactly_ what we were aiming for
