NEw new new Errata? What is going on?

[Da Boss]

Ok so we had a post earlier about new Divided errata between "critical" and SFU errata but this seems to have disappeared?

Over on the ADB forum it has been announced that all the SFU errata is official and will be used in all future rules updates and publications which seems to make having the split pointless and to be honest downright confusing?

IF ADB are having the final say on what changes are made to the ships to fit their universe that's fine.........however IMO they also need to think a bit more about the possible effects any changes they make without just resorting to "its always been this way" everytime and ignoring the effects of the changes - especially since so very few games have been played.

There is no point in only saying the ship was always like this - it does not help and some aspects of ACTA - Like Initiative and the related Command trait have as far as I can see nothing like them in SFB/FC so they can't have been incorporated or costed before??!

Surely we have to take the view at the beginning of any errata process for a published game that the fleets are relatively balanced and consequently any changes - no matter how apparently justified or how many decades "its always been like this" need to be looked at as positive or negative and points adjusted as such. If not the whole thing is broken before we even start and the points assigned mean very little, again IMO

Some things don't matter in ACTA very much - changing labs / transporters or the odd tractor beam make no real difference HOWEVER adding or subtracting guns or trait does and should add or reduce points.

If the official changes in books are going to reflect the ADB required changes - there is very little point in having two lists........... lets just work out the needed changes and sort them out for the re-launch BUT include points adjustments where needed.

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

I agree this whole errata thing is very frustrating. Honestly though the ship stats should've been right in the first place. I've worked out pretty much the entire formula needed to translate a ship from FedCom to CTA:SF (assuming I don't have to invent stats for a whole new weapon like the Lyran ESG or ISC PPD). The hardest part is judgement calls on a couple of the weapon arcs like the Gorn LP/RP arcs. Other than that though it is not that complex a process. :?

The stats should have been right to start with and THEN should have had their points adjusted to reflect the new game system's nuances. Unfortunately apparently not enough time was given to playtest and some things apparently weren't play test at all (at the very least the FedCom vets apparently never touched the Civilian shipping stuff or they would've noticed the absurd damage scores).

I also want a properly balanced game, pointswise, but I also want all the phasers in the right spot and amount (and like I said, this should not have been that difficult to do). Hell, I probably wouldn't be nearly this critical if the game and ship stats were being created out of whole cloth instead of coming from a previously established source.

Oh and the reason the Errata thread went "poof" is apparently because the errata was posted without ADB giving approval.

 

[mcoyote]

Related to this, the latest errata (dated today, 02/20) has two sections, "Critical Updates" and "SFU Updates", both with changes to the D7C variant.

Critical Updates:
"D7C Variant: Remove one Attack Die from each Phaser-2 weapon system."

SFU Updates:
"D7C Variant: Completely replace entry with; Replace Turret fire arc Phaser-2 with Phaser-1, change Marines 8, Anti-Drone 2, Transporters 7, add Command +1. +30 Points."

Should I apply both or defer to the latter? It should be doable to apply both.

I've integrated everything else without issue, however.

Out of curiosity: When does a second printing seem likely?

 

[Da Boss]

As I said thats all fine but it would be equally easy to say - well we have adjusted this ship by say reducing phasers by a AD or 2, just drop it 5/10 pts, add a trait same.

The whole thing is getting very confusing..............

many of them don't matter - labs and such like

 

[Ben2]

Some ships are converted straight over, some ships don't follow those conversion rules (the Tholian Destroyer for instance, look at the hull and shield values SFB/FC vs ACTA) possibly for balance reasons.

At this point I think 'A Sky Full of Stars' situation is getting reasonably likely, and a revised rulebook with the relaunch wouldn't be that bad an idea.

 

[Digger]

The thing that attracted me in the first place to ACTA was its simplicity, especially after playing SFB.

If it starts getting silly again, then all that is going to happen is that people are going to leave it for something else and both Mongoose and ADB will be left with some very expensive miniature moulds with no players!

Please can we keep it simple and a pleasure to play!

 

[tneva82]

The thing that attracted me in the first place to ACTA was its simplicity, especially after playing SFB.

If it starts getting silly again, then all that is going to happen is that people are going to leave it for something else and both Mongoose and ADB will be left with some very expensive miniature moulds with no players!

Please can we keep it simple and a pleasure to play!

Well. Applying one errata which isn't that long isn't that complicated. Especially if you make notes it to your rulebook.

I'm more concerned about complexity of rules. These errata's don't alter complexity there one whiff.

Yes it's annoying mistakes slipped in but there's no error free rulebook out there so if you want to play with miniatures either you accept error filled rulebook or you accept errata's.

Myself I just slap the errata's in and continue.

Now if the errata's would introduce new complex book keeping introducing rules then there would be case in "keep it simple!" complain

 

[Digger]

I totally agree, the errata are not complex - I was referring to the rules becoming overly complex in themselves!

If they start talking about power allocation, then adios!

I might as well go back to SFB - At least they had counters to play with! :twisted:

 

[Captain Jonah]

The errata are not complex but you don't want to end up playing a game and have your opponent whip out errata 274 from last night which you haven't yet seen and proceed to tell you your Phasers have changed again.

In terms of metal, not something I am concerned by. If the quality is good I’m happy, well if they can actually send them to me I’ll be happy as well.

If you look at the number of times rules come up on the forums, ADDs for example, there is a clear need to re-explaining many things.

Again and again people pop in and ask about ADDs, crits, shield penetrations, hits and hits (AD hitting against multi hit HITS) and so on.

I am more than happy to have metal ships (if my feds can keep their nacelles up :shock: ), droopy Feds just don’t look nice. If I’m going to a game I’ll take the ships I need not my entire collection so I don’t need a backpack of holding for 30 kilos of metal.

I just want the game to be simple, quick, fun and fairly stable. :lol:

Oh and no more noturneness for my poor old Gorn :wink:

 

[MongooseMatt]

We agree with everything you chaps are saying here, and are taking it to heart.

The current errata does not add anything new from the last revision and so, for now, please play with this.

Steve and I are currently discussing how best to handle the errata situation in a manner we will both be happy with, and that you chaps will find easy to work with.

 

[silashand]

Version numbers would probably be a good idea. JMO though...