Split game/community SFB ACTA

[katadder]

Hi guys,
just been over on BBS forums where there is talk of changing weapon mounts and arcs to 60 degrees etc. would this not result in an split, is ACTA under ADB going to just get more and more complicated until it resembles FC (which i prefer) and how will mongooses version go?

 

[H]

Hi guys,
just been over on BBS forums where there is talk of changing weapon mounts and arcs to 60 degrees etc. would this not result in an split, is ACTA under ADB going to just get more and more complicated until it resembles FC (which i prefer) and how will mongooses version go?

but wouldn't that make a mockery of the 200 year developmental history of the ships in the SFU?! If changing a design detail on a ship causes such a furore, what would changing weapon arcs do!

 

[Renny]

Well if this happens, i'm out. ACTA has 90 degree fire arcs. End of story. Last thing we need right now is a major revision of the rule system.

 

[Iron Domokun]

For what it's worth, I agree.Two different versions of the arcs would tend to fracture the player base, and that would be bad. SFB experiences fracturing of the player base with its optional rules, for example groups that use electronic warfare vs. those that don't. The ninety-degree arcs decision has been made, so stick with it IMO.

However, I believe from reading the original post and the context of that post, it is intended as a very-optional option. I'm certain it's not intended as a wholesale revision of the ACTA rules, just something available as an option for some players (probably the SFUers who complain about arcs all the time). If this data is published I'd bet that it will appear in one of the support publications like Captain's Log, Communique, or Signs & Portents and not in a printed rulebook. [That last sentence is speculation based on past experience, not gospel.]

Sixty-degree arcs would make it easy to do a hex-based version of ACTA, including an adaptation of the SFB Online engine for sixty-degree hex-based ACTASF.

 

[Da Boss]

I think a seperate mini supplement would be fine.

However there does seem to be a move towards having a two tier ACTA game which may or may not work.............time will tell.

 

[Digger]

Is it me or is this all going to hell in a hand-basket! :x

All I want is a nice simple game with some nice miniatures to play it with - Is that too much to ask? :evil:

 

[logical_proof]

As a federation commander player initially, 60 degree arcs would be stupid. I do tend to get frustrated when things "need to get changed to match the universe". It doesn't make sense.

 

[Jean]

It was an idea that SVC had and may or may not happen as something he might enjoy. It certainly would not be a required or even recommended change to ACTASF.

You have to realize that SVC's brain bubbles with ideas. He cannot stop the ideas from happening and many times he'll float a trial balloon to see who responds and how. If no one likes the idea, he isn't going to spend time developing it (and if he did for his own pleasure and no one liked it, then Leanna wouldn't let it go to market).

I got a hint of the idea bubbling when I played Zombies!!! with him over Christmas holidays. By the time he'd fiddled with rules and added new ones, it was a radically different game. It was still fun, but very different.

Jean

 

[MongooseMatt]

HI guys,

Rumour Control!

We will _not_ have a two-tier CTA. Ever. Nor will there be any major rules changes. There will not be any 60 degree arcs. Steve and I are currently discussing how to handle the errata with respect to SFU-ness, but CTA will always remain CTA.

 

[McKinstry]

Good. If I wanted FC I'd buy it.

 

[Kirksfolly]

Good. If I wanted FC I'd buy it.

Totally agree. I was introduced to this game by a friend who has extensive experience of the other systems. I haven't any but I loved this game from the outset and bought into it with a substantial investment. I want the basics to stay as they are please.