Iron Domokun
Mongoose
I saw the cute shuttle sculpts on the site. How do they work in ACTA:SF? I hear you can use them as suicide shuttles, can you also use them to move Marines around and do boarding actions?
Shuttles in ACTA:SF
- Thread starter Iron Domokun
- Start date
The list of uses in SFB for the standard shuttle are
1) A flying Phaser III - a poor mans fighter
2) Wild Weasel - a seeking weapon decoy
3) Suicide Shuttle - a seeking weapon
4) An extra lab for info gathering (I think Im right on that one)
5) A scatterpack - loaded up with spare drones and sent out as a seeking weapon
6) Transport of troops to planet or enemy ship
The seeking weapon options could be written up effectively not needing a shuttle toy on the board. The Wild Weasel could operate in a similar fashion as a special order.
However options 1,4 and 6 could make use of a toy on table.
1) A flying Phaser III - a poor mans fighter
2) Wild Weasel - a seeking weapon decoy
3) Suicide Shuttle - a seeking weapon
4) An extra lab for info gathering (I think Im right on that one)
5) A scatterpack - loaded up with spare drones and sent out as a seeking weapon
6) Transport of troops to planet or enemy ship
The seeking weapon options could be written up effectively not needing a shuttle toy on the board. The Wild Weasel could operate in a similar fashion as a special order.
However options 1,4 and 6 could make use of a toy on table.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Shuttles in SF ACTA can carry troops or cargo*, or become suicide shuttles (which is something of a misnomer). **
*I'm not sure there is actually any use for these in scenarios, yet.
** As ever, playtest rules are subject to change.
*I'm not sure there is actually any use for these in scenarios, yet.
** As ever, playtest rules are subject to change.
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
Its been a long time since I read SFB material (still got my old binder somewhere...), remind me, do shuttles have shields and hull boxes/points in SFB or do they prettymuch just die the second you look at them mean with a phaser?
I know fighters can take (small amounts of) punishment, so I assume shuttles can take a hit or two as well. I'm guessing shuttles, if allowed to act as independent "ships" in ACTA, will probably have a couple damage points and a few shield points (3-5 maybe?). Though I think allowing them to act as "ships" would be bad, too easy to abuse for initiative sinking. I'd probably just have them move and shoot during their home ship's movement and fire activations.
Just some wild speculation based on half-remembered SFB knowledge I haven't really thought much about in 10 years. Hope no one minds. :mrgreen:
I know fighters can take (small amounts of) punishment, so I assume shuttles can take a hit or two as well. I'm guessing shuttles, if allowed to act as independent "ships" in ACTA, will probably have a couple damage points and a few shield points (3-5 maybe?). Though I think allowing them to act as "ships" would be bad, too easy to abuse for initiative sinking. I'd probably just have them move and shoot during their home ship's movement and fire activations.
Just some wild speculation based on half-remembered SFB knowledge I haven't really thought much about in 10 years. Hope no one minds. :mrgreen:
In FC, shuttles are unarmed, take six damage points to kill, cannot be used as wild weasels or scatterpacks, and are used to either transfer Marines (crew units and cargo are abstracted out of that game, unless noted in a particular scenario) or as suicide shuttles.
If that game is the main basis of conversion for shuttles (as it is for Starmada, and seems to be for ACtA:SF in many other areas) then I wouldn't imagine it being too far from that here.
But I could be wrong...
If that game is the main basis of conversion for shuttles (as it is for Starmada, and seems to be for ACtA:SF in many other areas) then I wouldn't imagine it being too far from that here.
But I could be wrong...
The Shuttles in ACTA:SF had there phasers removed just like the one in FC did to stop the shuttle cloud defence screen tactic.
As far damage goes, and this is just speculation but, I would not be surprised if the only have one damage point or 2 at the most. In SFB a Phaser-3 would not kill a Suicide Shuttle but 2 phaser-3s or a Phaser-1 was pretty much a auto kill.
As far damage goes, and this is just speculation but, I would not be surprised if the only have one damage point or 2 at the most. In SFB a Phaser-3 would not kill a Suicide Shuttle but 2 phaser-3s or a Phaser-1 was pretty much a auto kill.
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
I forgot shuttles had no shields in SFB. 
And yeah, 2 damage points sounds about right, a phaser in kill-zone range will cook it in a single hit, and outside that it'll take two blasts.
Though on a similar topic to shuttles, I'm looking forward to seeing the Kzinti fighters in action, and, one day, PFs.
And yeah, 2 damage points sounds about right, a phaser in kill-zone range will cook it in a single hit, and outside that it'll take two blasts.
Though on a similar topic to shuttles, I'm looking forward to seeing the Kzinti fighters in action, and, one day, PFs.
We'll see what the Stinger-2s will be like once the Hydrans show up, but it might be some time before any true carriers or gunboat tenders land.
But then, the same ongoing question in FC might come up here; what if there is a point at which you'd have one group of players baying for the kitchen sink of SFB unit types to come over, and another just as keen about keeping things like fighters and PFs out of ACtA:SF?
But then, the same ongoing question in FC might come up here; what if there is a point at which you'd have one group of players baying for the kitchen sink of SFB unit types to come over, and another just as keen about keeping things like fighters and PFs out of ACtA:SF?
Include them as a separate supplement - then those that want them can have them. Follow the Star Fleet Command method of having the Hydrans have fighters (despite the Kzinti AAS) to test the basics, as Hyrans really don't function well without them, then expand as supplements.
SFB players get to play with Fighters, Interceptors, PFs and super heavy fighters and FC players can ignore the supplement.
SFB players get to play with Fighters, Interceptors, PFs and super heavy fighters and FC players can ignore the supplement.
Well, to go back to Federation Commander (which I seem to do quite often these days) the only fighters in the "vanilla" game are Stinger-2s (in the Main Era, Stinger-1s in the Middle Years), and even then only on a casual basis (i.e. no true carriers). As you say, Stingers are a staple of Hydran doctrine, so they had to be in; though ships tend to have a few less fighters per class than in SFB.
Now, there has been talk of doing a product called Borders of Madness, in which things like strike carriers would have a place, while still being kept apart from FC proper. The thing is, even this compromise is not universally popular; while it looks fine on paper, no-one is exactly sure how things might go if certain game groups decide that they want to keep BoM out, while others might insist on it, and thus lead to a splintering of the fanbase.
Now, that might not be the case here (or, indeed, in the FC community; I'd like to think things can be managed amicably even if BoM goes ahead as a product); but I fully expect that kind of question to come up if the day comes that Mongoose pause to consider whether or not opening the floodgates to attrition units (even on an optional basis) will be good for ACtA:SF in the long run.
Now, there has been talk of doing a product called Borders of Madness, in which things like strike carriers would have a place, while still being kept apart from FC proper. The thing is, even this compromise is not universally popular; while it looks fine on paper, no-one is exactly sure how things might go if certain game groups decide that they want to keep BoM out, while others might insist on it, and thus lead to a splintering of the fanbase.
Now, that might not be the case here (or, indeed, in the FC community; I'd like to think things can be managed amicably even if BoM goes ahead as a product); but I fully expect that kind of question to come up if the day comes that Mongoose pause to consider whether or not opening the floodgates to attrition units (even on an optional basis) will be good for ACtA:SF in the long run.
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
Oh, Kizinti fighters won't be in the initial release? I guess I misremembered how much they used fighters. I thought they were only behind the Hydrans in their frequency of fighter usage.
The Kzintis in "vanilla" FC do not use fighters; but even in SFB, they may have many carriers, but they don't run the same casual carrier doctrine (i.e. sticking fighters on regular warships, instead of keeping them on dedicated carriers) that the Hydrans do.
(There is a preview of a Borders of Madness Kzinti Strike Carrier (and ones for the Federation and Klingons) over on the Commander's Circle. The playtest rules created in BoM to fly those Ship Cards are more streamlined than in SFB; but to re-iterate, even if those ships, or ones like them, ever get published in BoM, they will not be a part of "vanilla" FC.)
(There is a preview of a Borders of Madness Kzinti Strike Carrier (and ones for the Federation and Klingons) over on the Commander's Circle. The playtest rules created in BoM to fly those Ship Cards are more streamlined than in SFB; but to re-iterate, even if those ships, or ones like them, ever get published in BoM, they will not be a part of "vanilla" FC.)
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
Ah, I see. I don't have a lot of familiarity with Federation Commander, the material I have/am familiar with is an ancient copy of SFB from the early 90s or late 80s in poor condition. I should try finding where I left that binder it and a bunch of SSDs and such are stuffed in one of these days.
AdmiralGrafSpee
Mongoose
I for one would very much like fighters for ACTASF even if its not "main stream" in FC. ACTASF is designed to handle even larger games than FC:Fleetscale and truely huge battles should include carriers IMHO.
There shouldn't be any issues implementing or balancing them, seeing as how there are already carriers and fighters in ACTA Noble Armada.
-Tim
There shouldn't be any issues implementing or balancing them, seeing as how there are already carriers and fighters in ACTA Noble Armada.
-Tim
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
As well as in B5:ACTA and Victory at Sea. Fighters have been a part of the CTA rules since the start, so I don't think adding them to the SFU rules should be difficult since there is a precedent in both fluff and rules.
Once the Hydrans make it in with their Stingers in a couple of years or so. I don't see any reason why fighters can't be worked in for everyone. But let the methane breathing trash cans have their moment in the spot light first.
Now on a sidenote when fighters do finally come. I wouldn't mind seeing them work like fighter factors in Federation and Empires. 1 fight factor = 2 strike fighters = 1heavy fighter. But there is a lot of time to worry about that later.
Now on a sidenote when fighters do finally come. I wouldn't mind seeing them work like fighter factors in Federation and Empires. 1 fight factor = 2 strike fighters = 1heavy fighter. But there is a lot of time to worry about that later.
GalagaGalaxian
Mongoose
I hope it doesn't take "a couple" years for the Hydrans to show up. 
They're one of my favorite factions. Hopefully they'll be a part of the first expansion/supplement that was mentioned should be coming out around this time next year.
They're one of my favorite factions. Hopefully they'll be a part of the first expansion/supplement that was mentioned should be coming out around this time next year.
