Rulebook Preview

[MongooseMatt]

We have just posted a short preview of the rulebook - you can grab it for free at;

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/sfrulebookpreview.pdf

 

[Captain Jonah]

Splendid thanks, I'll go have a read a bit later. :lol:

 

[Finlos]

A good read with my morning coffee! Getting my hands on the full book would, naturally, be much better.

 

[Asguard101]

First off thanks for the preview. Looking forward to the real thing landing on my door step.

In the preview you had the Klingons with a Special rule for shields and a Initiative Trait Bonus... Do all the Empires have special rules,a nd if so is there any chance of getting a peek at them?

 

[Nerroth]

I see that the Tholian CA doesn't have the option of swapping out the prow-mounted disruptors for photons that the Ship Card in Federation Commander allows for.

Are the web generators abstracted out in the same way they were for FC back in the day (before full web rules were developed for Tholian Attack); i.e. as snares only for the time being?

EDIT: And shouldn't all three ships in that file have Probe 1, to match their respective Ship Cards?

 

[Greg Smith]

And shouldn't all three ships in that file have Probe 1, to match their respective Ship Cards?

All ships have 1 probe as standard. Unless they have the Probes X trait, where X may equal zero.

 

[BFalcon]

Firstly, OK... who's the "The Firm" fan who named the scenario??

(That's a Star Trekkin' reference in case you hadn't got it...)

Everything looks good... I do like the choice of font too... trek/SFC without being unreadable or hard on the eyes...

I'd also like to add my thanks to Matt for putting the CA/DD codes in for SFB/FC/ACTA player peace... I just had the picture in my mind of confused ACTA players wondering why there was no such reference in the book, yet players were still using them and possibly of them making up their own codes when talking about ships and inadvertantly confusing everyone.

I am seriously going to see if I can't sneak a squadron box into the budget this month though...

 

[Iron Domokun]

Is there a scenario called "Klingons On The Starboard Bow?" Tell me there is!!

 

[Myrm]

Well with one called We come in Peace (Shoot to Kill), we can hope!

If there isn't...shame on you

 

[MongooseMatt]

Is there a scenario called "Klingons On The Starboard Bow?" Tell me there is!!

We used that one for the advert on the home page of the web site

 

[BFalcon]

I note that Matthew didn't tell us who it was... I personally suspect it might have been him... which would explain why he's keeping it quiet... :twisted:

 

[Asguard101]

Has there been any release date set for ACTA:SF?

 

[MongooseMatt]

I note that Matthew didn't tell us who it was... I personally suspect it might have been him... which would explain why he's keeping it quiet... :twisted:

What is game design without a little whimsy?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Has there been any release date set for ACTA:SF?

We start shipping next week!

 

[locarno24]

What is game design without a little whimsy?

Sagnami Island Tactical Simulator, to be honest.

Any wargame whose rulebook non-jokingly uses the phrase 'sperical trigonometry' has the wrong idea at a fundamental level...

 

[Ben2]

I found the SITS rules a good read, but I had more chance of being struck by lightning than finding someone who would play them with me. The danger with highly detailed rules sets is you have a buying public who have boring jobs and want something less like an A-level accountancy course to relax with. People want explosions, dramatic dice rolling and it to take less than 3 hours. And generally to sink a couple of pints without it costing you the game because you forget one detail on a rather long sequence of play.

ACTA:SF I've already got someone else who wants to play. And I may convert them to getting their own minis.

 

[Nerroth]

From what I gather, the second edition of SITS is more closely related to Squadron Strike, rather than the full-on Attack Vector: Tactical rules that V1 ran on.

(To put it another way, Squadron Strike seems to relate to Attack Vector: Tactical the way that Federation Commander does to Star Fleet Battles, in terms of relative complexity.)


That said, just as FC still has a somewhat different focus than ACtA:SF, I'd imagine that SS would not be intended to do the same thing, in terms of play level.

 

[Spence]

From what I gather, the second edition of SITS is more closely related to Squadron Strike, rather than the full-on Attack Vector: Tactical rules that V1 ran on.

(To put it another way, Squadron Strike seems to relate to Attack Vector: Tactical the way that Federation Commander does to Star Fleet Battles, in terms of relative complexity.)


That said, just as FC still has a somewhat different focus than ACtA:SF, I'd imagine that SS would not be intended to do the same thing, in terms of play level.

Actually I'd say SITS is to AV:T as ACTA:SF is to SFB.

I have SITS and the actual rules and play is amazingly simple where AV:T is a nightmare of complexity. Playing SITS is easy. The AVID that is used to plot the 3D aspects takes all of the hard thinking out of things. Also they have a real streamlined system to handle the large numbers of missiles.

In my opinion, I think that AV:T and SS tend to overcomplicate things. But SITS is very reasonable and actual a bit simple for what it does.

It is harder to find a player than it is to teach them to play. :mrgreen:

 

[scoutdad]

I too like the SITS rules. It's no where near as hard to play as a first reading of the rules would make it seem.

It is difficult to find potential players willing to wade through the explanation to get to the meat of flying in space.