Official Errata from Mongoose?

[scoutdad]

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?

The answer involves SFU minutia, which is frowned upon, But basically it comes down to rules in SFB and fluff in Fed Comm.
The Star Fleet Battles rules have a rule (Rule S8, obe precise) that dictates the composition of an acceptable force. It specifies how many limited production ships are allowed in a single force, what the command limits of the flagship are, how many "vanilla" hulls are required before additional leader variants can be added, how many scouts are allowed, and so on.

this rule doesn't exist in Federation Commander, which is the best way to tell an old-time SFB'er from a new player. We [meaning Alzheimers aged SFB'ers] still cringe when we see a force consisting of more leaders / limited production ships than would be allowed under S8. And then we try to use forces that meet those requirements from a sense of "correctness" more than anythign else, even if it produces a sub-optimal force.

 

[Nomad]

Scoutdad; +1.

 

[Sgt_G]

Oh, I can do ScoutDad one better. If you really want to read all four pages of SFB rule (S8.0), see this link: http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/S8_AM_upload.pdf

8)

 

[Da Boss]

Thanks for the info

I still feel that an optional rule regarding fleet composition would be the best of both worlds. I think its a valid discussion but I am not sure it needs to be enshrined in the rules? Matt (from his previous post) seems against it and it does not seem to be imposed in Federation Commander?

re the balancing factor - surely the primary balancing factor in ACTA: SF is the points cost - a Command ship costs significantly more. Also as was noted quite often you have these odd points when trying to put a fleet together and its handy to use them up.

Arguably you will see more of the generic command ships (like the Romulan ones) unless the Command upgrade is undercosted - which is a different discussion.

 

[Nomad]

I don't want to speak for Matt, although I note his remark about Command ships at the top of this page.

The points costs for Command upgrades in ACtA:SF reflect the points cost of Command variants in the SFU; however, in the SFU, the points costs are not the whole story.

That's rather the, er, point.

Oh, I can do ScoutDad one better. If you really want to read all four pages of SFB rule (S8.0), see this link: http://www.starfleetgames.com/documents/S8_AM_upload.pdf

8)

Garth - that'll be useful for anyone who hadn't downloaded it very many years ago 8)

 

[billclo]

I should note that the S8 rules apply to tactical SFB games, and not F&E. F&E, while it uses the command rating to determine how many ships can be in a battle force, it has far fewer restrictions on force compositions. There are no limits for example, on how many BCH or Maulers can be used (although only one mauler can use it's special abilities in a combat round).

For example, a Lyran/Klingon force could consist of
6 Lyran DN/BC with an admiral (raises the command rating of 10 by 1 to 11).
Lyran Mauler (DN or CA variant)
a Klingon battlegroup consisting of a D5 and F5/F5W squadron). 6 ships count as 5 for command purposes.

The flagship has a command rating of 10, and an admiral allows one more ship. Total = 11 ships PLUS the flagship = 12.

You and your opponent could use either set of rules and restrictions, so long as both agree.

Frankly, if there were ever some rules done up for continuing combat, I'd love to resolve some F&E battles as an ACTASF game, and go back and forth. :lol:

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

Frankly, if there were ever some rules done up for continuing combat, I'd love to resolve some F&E battles as an ACTASF game, and go back and forth. :lol:

F&E + CTA:SF? This sounds like it could make a really cool separate thread.

 

[Sgt_G]

SFB rule (S8.0) has a -stupid- amount of detail that ACTA does not need nor want. Do they want perhaps a paragraph's worth of rules for this kind of stuff?? Up to Matthew, but it sounds like not.

 

[Nomad]

Would it take more than a sentence?

"No more than one Command variant may be used, unless each is accompanied by two non-command versions of the same hull".

 

[Asguard101]

Frankly, if there were ever some rules done up for continuing combat, I'd love to resolve some F&E battles as an ACTASF game, and go back and forth. :lol:

F&E + CTA:SF? This sounds like it could make a really cool separate thread.

I'd rather combine ACTA:SF and the Campaign system VBAM is working on, with ABD. (If it ever gets done)

 

[Lincolnlog]

First of all good to see you on here Scoutdad.

Second, I think Scoutdads and the old S8 rule is what us historical wargames refer to as a realistic force mix. It is one of the complaints about points driven game systems. Leader or Command variants were probably not produced in great numbers and when viewed that each empire has multiple borders to cover, they would spread throughout the fleet.

You can house rule this, but then it would not come into play during tournaments, and someone would lay down their all NCC force. My understanding of the rules, and still digesting all of this mind you, is that the Command trait is not cumulative. So, the only bonus for an all NCC fleet, would be you couldn't loose the +1 until the last ship withdrew or was destroyed.

 

[Da Boss]

A tournament uses whatever rules the tournament organiser decides are appropriate:

We have had a number of tounaments that had specific limits of ship numbers, composition, In service dates, allies, etc etc.

@ Nomad - re points cost - if the points are balanced correctly then what is the incentive to taking all Command ships?

lets look at the current Command ships based on the premesis that Command +1 is worth 25pts

Constitution - 25pts gets your AH phaser 1 T arc and Command +1, maybe should be 30pts but arguable
Chicago - 30pts gets you two extra AD and Command +1 - Seems ok
D7 - 30 pts gets you 2 extra Phaser 1's and Command +1 - ditto
Allosaurus Rex - 25pts gets you Command +1 - ditto
Kzinti New Heavy Cruiser - 25pts gets you Command +1 AND extra 2AD - bit overpowered - should be 30pts IMO
Battlecruiser - 25pts gets you Command +1

So out of those ships only 1 is IMO a bit off and one possible - so what is the incentive to have lots of say D7C's or Allosaurus Rex - if this is the case will the problem just not occur? Yes you can take the whole fleet of these - depending on points - but why would you

 

[Nomad]

@ Da Boss - I would not take such a fleet. But I have faced them.

It's not a game changer, and, on it's own it's not a game winner. It is an abuse, and it's one that can be ruled against quite easily.

 

[Da Boss]

Sorry don't see where the abuse is when its unlikely that anyone will take mutiple command ships aprt from the one Kzinti ship which appers to be out of sink and even I am not sure it is better than the Fast Cruiser - although the Battlecruiser ain't great I admit

lets think about the forthcoming tournament - 1500pts

Which Command ships are we likely to see multiples of and so abuse the system?

 

[Clanger]

Multiple Command Ships would mean that you waste points for those ships and you field less ships than you opponent. For a Command Ship you might get a bigger ship with more guns.

I do not see having a back up Command Ship as an abuse. It makes sound tactical sense especially for the Romulans, who have a few Ships capiable to take over Fleet Direction responsibilties. They are very organised those Romulans.

Also it would be up to individual players / Tourney organisers to set the limits. Personally I would not have much of a problem if my opponent fielded all Command Ships it means that he still gets that + 1 no matter how many Ships he has.

 

[Nomad]

Well I don't know because I've got no intention of doing it

Sorry if this has upset you, DB. If you don't see the use of rare specialist ships as the backbone of fleets as abusive, then please go ahead. Ultimately it really isn't *that* important.

That's my last word on this topic; positions have been laid out clearly, views have been stated and opinions are unlikely to change.

 

[Da Boss]

Not upset :? - the difference is that I don't think it will actually happen?

I think we will end up in exactly the same place and if we don't it may be the odd ship needs tweeking.

 

[Totenkopf]

Well I don't know because I've got no intention of doing it

Sorry if this has upset you, DB. If you don't see the use of rare specialist ships as the backbone of fleets as abusive, then please go ahead. Ultimately it really isn't *that* important.

That's my last word on this topic; positions have been laid out clearly, views have been stated and opinions are unlikely to change.

I think the point that has been made repeatedly is that what you suggest would not likely happen, and if it did - then the "offending" party would learn quickly the error of their ways in spending additional points for vessels with the Command +1 that offer no additional benefit.

Having looked over my rulebook, I would not ever run more than 1 D7C as a Klingon player, because at 205 pts, it is a bit underpowered and I have much better offerings for less points.

Not to sidetrack, I do wonder as well if they will give the C8 the option for the Command +1 at 25 or so points, but I likely will run the C8 as is without the Command +1 and the additional +25 points.

 

[Finlos]

I think the "all command fleets" will turn out to be a one-trick pony. Having a fleet comprised of 'best of' ships will be smaller than a balanced fleet and, directly as a result, be outmaneuvered by the smaller ships once the 'all-star' team is done moving.

Also, when you can have 'X' number of destroyers / light cruisers for every battlecruiser I field (hard numbers pending) sure each ship may not be as tough but each BCH I lose hurts me more than each ship you lose. Plus you have a lot more firing platforms than I do. The idea should be self-correcting over time.

It does take a campaign (against human players) to realize *why* batching all your big ships into one death-fleet isn't your best option.

The above post is, of course, purely theoretical until I've had a chance to play some games

 

[Totenkopf]

I think the "all command fleets" will turn out to be a one-trick pony. Having a fleet comprised of 'best of' ships will be smaller than a balanced fleet and, directly as a result, be outmaneuvered by the smaller ships once the 'all-star' team is done moving.

Also, when you can have 'X' number of destroyers / light cruisers for every battlecruiser I field (hard numbers pending) sure each ship may not be as tough but each BCH I lose hurts me more than each ship you lose. Plus you have a lot more firing platforms than I do. The idea should be self-correcting over time.

It does take a campaign (against human players) to realize *why* batching all your big ships into one death-fleet isn't your best option.

The above post is, of course, purely theoretical until I've had a chance to play some games

I would also add that a more numerous and better balanced fleet would have a definite advantage in being able to wait to move their important ships to best adjust to their opponent's movements. A smaller fleet composed of expensive ships will definitely have disadvantages in this game system, and I'm not sure the benefits of running such a fleet will out weight the disadvantages.