Response on Armageddon Posts

hiffano said:
fair enough. What matters is it's been looked at now, and changes pending in S+P.
by the way EP where you been, not seen you around for ages?

Well after 8 months of lounging around at home following my car accident I have been busy at work the past 5 weeks trying to get my shop up and running again!
That and rediscovering a social life! :lol:
wow, must have been a bad accident, glad to hear you are back up and about then!
hiffano said:
wow, must have been a bad accident, glad to hear you are back up and about then!

Yup broke a fair few things and my femur clean in two!

Just had a scan this morning and it still hasn't fully healed! :cry:

Can walk though
ouch, glad your on the mend EP.

With regard to the Xixx, I personally think that particular little number is fine, It may have plenty of firepower but its very fragile (that for me is the issue with the current Sag, not that htat level of firepower is wrong or that that level of toughness is wrong, its the combination of the two!)
well now that we DO know there is an issue with the sagg we'll playtest it and what's more we have much longer to playtest this project so we'll hopefully get to field multiples of the same ship to see if they remain balanced
Like the rest of the group, I'm glad to hear that the Sag problem is being addressed. I'll confess that I've never played the broken ship in mass numbers. I played against 2 at most and managed to win all games. However, I see the potential problem and have heard the stories on the board.

Still if there's a chance for something to be broken it will be. As gamers we will spend the time we're not rolling dice planning the next time we will be. We'll study the rules, find the loop-holes and exploit them.

I'm glad to see that Mongoose is rectifying this problem and I hope they continue to listen to the boards. It's not many companies that actually listen to their players like Mongoose. Even though we can be miffed that it took so long to address the problem at least it is being addressed.

ACTA is a different game than anything I've played before. The PL and initiative ordering just set the whole mechanism apart. I'm not sure it all works - it's a grand experiment in my book, testing new things in a well rutted road of miniature gaming. I'll stay on the cart and see how it does and thank Matt for listening to us when we see problems.

I'm ranting, but I'm almost done. I have to throw in one suggestion. My biggest problem with the mechanics of the game is the Critical Hit table and its disincentive to taking high PL ships. I think the table itself could use a little fine tuning on effects, mostly we need to do something about it's effect on higher PL games. The best solution I've run across (and I seem to be the only champion of the idea) is the Redundancy rule which allows high PL ships to shrug off the first couple of crits it gets. Without something like this the big ships will be paperweights in our games. When the first shot of the game can shut down my Armageddon level ship why would I take it over a cloud of skirmishers or a flock of raids or a bunch of battles or a couple of wars?

In the playtesting for V2, consider the "Redundancy" thread.
There was a good bit of hoohaa when the list came out and it was reduced to skirmish. What changed in May was we started to have the evidence to say whoa...please change this. When those who thought it was an issue were dismissed the 'ten sag fleet' appeared and that started the hot debate.