Official Errata from Mongoose?

[Nerroth]

FC has no Command ratings; there is no overt rule stopping you from taking as many ships (of whatever class) as you like.

That said, if players in that game want to follow the "historical" command structures, the best recommendation is to turn to the setup you see in the likes of SFB and F&E. (In the latter case, the issue of each unit's command rating is crucial; no matter how many ships you deploy into a given hex on the strategic map, the amount that can actually take part in a given battle force is restricted based on various factors, not least the flagship's CR value.)

It's in those games where the likes of the D7C, C7 and C8 are so notable, in terms of their increased command-and-control facilities. As you can see in this Klingon Ship Information Table for F&E, the CR of the D7C is 9 (as compared to the D7's 8), while the C7 has a CR of 9 and the C8 10. These values are exactly in line with their equivalent units in Star Fleet (where the CC, BC and DN have CRs of 9, 9 and 10 respectively).

Had there been no use for a command bonus in ACtA:SF at all, it wouldn't matter; but since the effort was made to put it into the game, it's not in keeping with the source material for the likes of the D7C to provide a higher command bonus than the C7. Not least since part of the whole point of the C7's construction in the first place was to act as an improved command platform (which, while more expensive than a D7C, was still cheaper than another C8).

 

[Da Boss]

hmm ok - I can see exactly where you are coming from and its a pretty compelling argument Is it the same argument with the Kzinti Dreadnought

the C7 with Command+1 at 235 pts - might be interesting.
the C8 with Command +1 at 345 pts - again probably useable

In an ideal world I would prefer to have the option to have it with and without (and the D6 Command at 175pts 8) )

 

[Sgt_G]

What Nerroth said, but with some history. The command rating was invented for F&E to make its combat system work, and then inserted into SFB where it accidently solved some issue in that game. All three games (SFB, F&E, FedCmdr) and also the background info for Prime Directive have been kept 100% consistant. If a ship in one game has "x" amount of phasers, it's the same in all games. F&E doesn't count phasers, obviously, just as FedCmdr doesn't use command ratings, but things that do translate over are kept same-same as much as can be achived. Some things in SFU are "set in stone", other things can be adjusted. The Fed CL having more hit-points in ACTA to simulate Armor in SFB / FedCmdr, for example. Once you explained that to SFB players, few if any have a problem it it.

 

[Nomad]

In a game without boresight weapons where no-one has more than a basic +1/-2 initiative modifier, is a +1 initiative modifier all *that* important?

It seems fair that, to be consistent with the source materiel, *everyones* Heavy Battlecruisers and Dreadnoughts - and Battleships, when they appear - should have an initiative bonus.

On the other hand, I'd hate to see a 'race to the bottom' with each fleet trying to drag in cheaper and cheaper 'command ships' just because a handful of, for example, Kzinti or Gorn Command Light Cruisers existed as 'historical' footnotes in SFB.

On another thread, there was a discussion of a 'Limited Deployment' trait. If that is adopted, Command ships might be a suitable case for treatment.

 

[Asguard101]

I'd think all Command Heavy Cruisers, Battlecruisers, Dreadnoughts, Battleships should have a command trait. But I don't think this is going to happen. What I would like to see happen is have the command trait to become a static value /w maybe 1 or 2 PH-2s becoming PH-1s or adding a PH-1 to ships that don't have PH-2s. And allow this to be purchased for one ship in your fleet when you are selecting ships. This would even work with low point games since there are FF and DD leaders in the SFU that have not crossed over to the Fed Com.

 

[Nomad]

Asguard - the various Command (and other) variants already exist in the SFU. Some have enhanced weapons or shielding compared to their 'line' sisters. That's what the variant stat lines in the ACtA rulebook represent.

As I understand it, the contract between ADB and Mongoose specifies that the ships in ACtA:SF reflect their ADB originals (otherwise Paramount will become upset).

AFAIK that means there can't be any arbitrary 'let's bolt a few extra phasers on for 25 points' type modifications to ships in published Mongoose materiel.

 

[Asguard101]

Asguard - the various Command (and other) variants already exist in the SFU. Some have enhanced weapons or shielding compared to their 'line' sisters. That's what the variant stat lines in the ACtA rulebook represent.

As I understand it, the contract between ADB and Mongoose specifies that the ships in ACtA:SF reflect their ADB originals (otherwise Paramount will become upset).

AFAIK that means there can't be any arbitrary 'let's bolt a few extra phasers on for 25 points' type modifications to ships in published Mongoose materiel.

I'm aware they are there. I'm trying to suggest a way to get more command ships into ACTA. As it stands now, the Klingons have 1 ship the D7C that has any command, none of the heavy ships, C7 & C8, have a command trait.

 

[Nomad]

Frankly, I think there should be 'fewer' Command ships in the game - please see my post on the Brainstorming thread.

 

[starbreaker]

In a game without boresight weapons where no-one has more than a basic +1/-2 initiative modifier, is a +1 initiative modifier all *that* important?

Many ships gain significant single-target firepower increases by positioning with a target on the line between two firing arcs. The boresight effect is less absolute than it was in B5, but it's still a factor.

 

[Sgt_G]

Over on the other board, Tony (ScoutDad) said it's his understanding that Command trait was based on whether or not a ship has Flag Bridge in FedCmdr because that game doesn't use command ratings.

In SFB and F&E, ships have a command rating ranging from 3 (for frigates and police boats) to 10 (for most heavy battle-cruisers and up). The Command Cruiser / D7C have a rating of 9, whereas most heavy cruisers / D7 have a rating of 8.

I don't have a huge problem with the way it's done now, but if one were to re-look at it, perhaps one could say that any ship with a F&E command rating of 9 or 10 gets the Trait, and those with a rating of 8 or less don't.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Frankly, I think there should be 'fewer' Command ships in the game

I agree. That's why there aren't many

 

[Da Boss]

Don't the Romulans have about 6 or 7? Quite a high proportion?

I still think it would be cool to use the Pentacon leader rule to boost CQ for squadronned (or nearby) ships for squadron leader style command ships rather than actual Command bonus?

 

[Asguard101]

Frankly, I think there should be 'fewer' Command ships in the game

I agree. That's why there aren't many

I agree also, but the Klingons need more than 1. And that one only being a cruiser class.

 

[Nomad]

It's not really a matter of how many different *types* of command ship each fleet has, though I agree the Romulans seem to have more than enough.

It's whether *each and every cruiser* in a particular fleet is upgraded as a command ship to gain a cheap and unrealistic boost in firepower.

 

[Da Boss]

hmm not sure about this:

you pay the cost - its not like the difference between two Raid level ships? You sometimes (and not always) get a couple of extra AD - although this is usualy an extra cost. At present rather than buy 2 D7C's I would look at the other heavy cruisers - like the D5W, I'd seriously consider one as Command +1 is good but I would not get two unless its a really big game.

It might not be fluffy in every case but its valid. Also Matt did post earlier that he did not want to restrict choice of ships with regard to the Unique trait so it looks unlikely to be an official rule.

It would work well as a optional one for campaigns and tournaments.......as well as [ossibily unique/ rare ships.......which is equally valid restriction for fluff reasons?

 

[Nomad]

IIRC in ACtA:B5, Command variants were generally a priority level higher than their base hulls (Command Hyperion - Battle, Command Omega - War).

Which was a pretty big disincentive to using them at all, leading to the Command Omega getting a huge firepower and damage boost in 2nd edition to make her viable.

I dunno, maybe that was just EarthForce.

In SFB/FC the points difference between Command and Line versions isn't that great - precisely because there are other mechanisms (rule S8.0, Command Ratings et.c) to prevent abuse.

I certainly won't turn up to KotSB with all of my Kzinti NCAs upgraded to NCCs - lots of extra phaser-1s for less than the cost of a frigate! - but I know gamers who would.

 

[Da Boss]

It varied: Some Command ships were variants and some were just better than the vanilla ship for the same cost - Command Ochlivita? +1 Command AND a bonus CQ to other ships in its squadron for a few less weapons IIRC. Not all fleets had dedicated Command ship - I relied on my carriers as Centauri - but then it is one of the best in the game 8) EarthForce I played against tended to use the Avenger or Explorer to get +1 - although the Command +2 Hyperion was sometimes used.

re the ships getting a bit more bang for their buck - its certainly debatable why some ships get Command +1 and extra guns for 25pts, some get just Command +1 and some Command and extra guns for 30pts..............

 

[Nomad]

Comparisons between the SFU and ACtA:B5 are a bit apples and chalk, TBH. Both have their own balanceing factors and points systems are inherently a lot more flexible than Priority Levels.

The problem as I see it is that ACtA:SF does not currently have any of the SFU's balancing factors, or indeed any at all.

Would you feel that an all-NCC fleet was reasonable? As a Kzinti player, I wouldn't.

EDIT - clarification, that's a Kzinti fleet made up entirely of New Command Cruisers (NCCs), the (historically rare) command variant of the (common) NCA. The (gamesy) reason for doing this would be to gain the NCC's extra phaser-1 attack dice.

 

[Asguard101]

Comparisons between the SFU and ACtA:B5 are a bit apples and chalk, TBH. Both have their own balanceing factors and points systems are inherently a lot more flexible than Priority Levels.

The problem as I see it is that ACtA:SF does not currently have any of the SFU's balancing factors, or indeed any at all.

Would you feel that an all-NCC fleet was reasonable? As a Kzinti player, I wouldn't.

For a campaign no; for a tournament yes, as long as there are no tournament rules disallowing them.

 

[Builder]

Comparisons between the SFU and ACtA:B5 are a bit apples and chalk, TBH. Both have their own balanceing factors and points systems are inherently a lot more flexible than Priority Levels.

The problem as I see it is that ACtA:SF does not currently have any of the SFU's balancing factors, or indeed any at all.

Would you feel that an all-NCC fleet was reasonable? As a Kzinti player, I wouldn't.

I know very little about the SFU background, why wouldn't an all NCC fleet be accetable?