Typos, Errors etc. in 2nd Ed ActA

[KJ]

Sorry to interrupt all of your FAPping about here, but I didn't notice anything in this thread about the Olympus Gunship from the Fleet Book (p. 12). Does it really only have one weapon mounted on-board (medium laser cannon), or is this an omission and/or incorrect listing?

And, for the record on the whole FAP thing: IMO, the PL system of fleet building has been, is, and will always be broken. I've also heard/read all the arguments for and against since the game first hit the shelves, and a true points system would definitely keep fleets and/or weapons from being revised every 6-8 months (point values possibly, but not entire sets of ship stat lines). There's also no misinterpreting a fixed point value, or worry that two ships of equal PL are not of equal value on the tabletop.

Feel free to ignore that last paragraph if you either agree or disagree - not attempting to start an argument in the middle of your argument here.

 

[Da Boss]

On the gunship 4 dice double damage beam at skirmish ain't too bad - couple of them is nasty - played against them last week and 8 dice of beaminess does do a fair bit of damage!

 

[Triggy]

Sorry to interrupt all of your FAPping about here, but I didn't notice anything in this thread about the Olympus Gunship from the Fleet Book (p. 12). Does it really only have one weapon mounted on-board (medium laser cannon), or is this an omission and/or incorrect listing?

And, for the record on the whole FAP thing: IMO, the PL system of fleet building has been, is, and will always be broken. I've also heard/read all the arguments for and against since the game first hit the shelves, and a true points system would definitely keep fleets and/or weapons from being revised every 6-8 months (point values possibly, but not entire sets of ship stat lines). There's also no misinterpreting a fixed point value, or worry that two ships of equal PL are not of equal value on the tabletop.

Feel free to ignore that last paragraph if you either agree or disagree - not attempting to start an argument in the middle of your argument here.

Firstly, the Gunship isn't a typo.

Secondly - you still have exactly the same issues of balancing ships with a points system as a PL system. The only difference is with a points system you alter the points to fit the ship and with a PL system you alter the ship to fit the Priority Level. Same result at the end of the day with much playtesting required to attempt to achieve balanced lists.

The only thing a points system would help with in this context is the confusion over how to spend your Fleet Allocation Points.

 

[Poi]

The big problem with FAP is that Mongoose changed it between the rulebook and the fleet lists. They'd probably have done the same with points. :evil:

 

[Iain McGhee]

That's been sorted since. Both my books use the same breakdowns.

 

[Poi]

Not the breakdowns, the apparent change from breakDOWN in the rulebook to breakUP in Fleet Lists, which Matt has now confirmed is wrong. We should use the table in Fleet Lists, not the description.

 

[KJ]

The only difference is with a points system you alter the points to fit the ship and with a PL system you alter the ship to fit the Priority Level. Same result at the end of the day with much playtesting required to attempt to achieve balanced lists.

The only thing a points system would help with in this context is the confusion over how to spend your Fleet Allocation Points.

Every time you alter the ship itself, you change how the ship plays in the game. It's much easier to revise and balance a point value for a static set of unit stats than it is to change the stats of many ships to fit into what are, effectively, 6 different point values.

It's not, as you say, "the same result at the end of the day", as your ship's stats (and possibly usefulness and mission) have changed, altering how it plays on the tabletop. If only the points - not the stats - change for a ship, the only new thing players need be concerned about after revision is how many more or fewer of them they'll be able to fit into their x-point fleet - not how much different it will be to play on the tabletop.

After looking at the playtester's names in 2ed and recognizing some of them from their work on B5W, I do have some confidence that the ships will be closer to being "in balance" with each other in their respective PL. I still have little confidence that the PL system produces a "balanced" game between two opponents of similar skill levels due to the sheer number of ships you're attempting to squeeze into six distinct point values.

 

[Spideredd]

I have been gaming for a long time (over 10 years) and I have got to say this, points systems are inherently broken. You only have to look at GW games to realise this.
One of the things that attracted me to ACtA was the LACK of a points system.
Those of you who say that you are trying to fit too many ships into 6 distinct points systems need to realise that ACtA works on the premise that not all governments are equal.

Now for my understanding of the FAP rules (going almost entirely on what I have read in the forums)
I have a Battle 5 Fleet (for instance)
Point one and point two go on a warship
point three breaks down into 2 raid slots. I choose to break one of these down into 2 skirmish. i again only choose one and choose 2 patrol ships.
Point 4 breaks down into 4 skirmish slots, but I choose only three and decide to take two patrol choices as well
point five simply is a battle ship
This gives me the following
1 warship
1 battleship
1 raid ship
4 skirmish ships
4 patrol ships

Is this correct?
I'm not sure as to why you would want to tade parts of points UP, as you would either end up with fractions (never good in a war game) or whole points, that you could have achieved more simply by breaking down one complete point.

Oh and one final thing.
As long as fleet composition is correct, who cares how you got there?

Feel free to disagree or correct where I am wrong.

 

[KJ]

Well, gosh, I've been gaming for a long time, too (over 30 years), and I've seen quite a few points systems that work just fine (several of my friends, with whom I played lots of B5Wars and Fleet Action will not play CTA due to the lack of a proper point system). GW is probably the poorest example of a point system (or sets of gaming rules, for that matter), as the rules themselves are broken. IMO, CTA's core rules are sound; the method of fleet selection is lacking.

The contention that "all governments aren't equal" shouldn't translate into an unbalanced game (or the idea that since all governments aren't equal, their militaries should not be equal in a fleet engagement), especially if the idea of using the PL system is to ensure that equal forces have an even chance on the tabletop.

All of which is moot. CTA uses its own inherent PL POINT system for fleet selection, and isn't about to change that aspect of the game in the near future. Though I would definitely wager that the fleet lists, as well as 2ed ship stats, will undergo some revision in the near future.

:wink:

 

[Spideredd]

Well, gosh, I've been gaming for a long time, too (over 30 years), and I've seen quite a few points systems that work just fine (several of my friends, with whom I played lots of B5Wars and Fleet Action will not play CTA due to the lack of a proper point system). GW is probably the poorest example of a point system (or sets of gaming rules, for that matter), as the rules themselves are broken. IMO, CTA's core rules are sound; the method of fleet selection is lacking.

OK, a bit of an extreme example, I grant you, but I have found that there are some gamers out there that will attempt to get an army, fleet, character or whatever by breaking the point system, whatever the point system, GW is just the best known example of this. At least with the PL system, the selection process cannot be broken with a speadsheet with the ease that a points system allows.
And yes, I have broken points based systems my self. (i've grown out of doing it in friendly games, as winning every game is as boring as losing every game), I do this to every points based game I play to determine how badly broken it can become. Even the fairest points systems can be broken, though I must admit that some are difficult to break.

The contention that "all governments aren't equal" shouldn't translate into an unbalanced game (or the idea that since all governments aren't equal, their militaries should not be equal in a fleet engagement), especially if the idea of using the PL system is to ensure that equal forces have an even chance on the tabletop.

Ok. This was my weakest argument anyway
but I do honestly feel that the capabilities of ships within a single classification is actually quite close

All of which is moot. CTA uses its own inherent PL POINT system for fleet selection, and isn't about to change that aspect of the game in the near future. Though I would definitely wager that the fleet lists, as well as 2ed ship stats, will undergo some revision in the near future.

:wink:

I would bet the same as well, but my definition of near is 'within 5 years'
I like the PL system (as if you hadn't guessed) and I hear that even the leauge is now a force to be reckoned with.

But that's enough FAPping for me.
How about we agree to dissagree?

 

[darknight]

funny innit, new page same argument.lol :lol:

 

[KJ]

funny innit, new page same argument.lol :lol:

That's why I said "feel free to ignore if you agree or if you disagree". I didn't come here looking for an argument (yes you did, no I didn't, yes you did - by the way is this a five-minute argument, or the full half-hour?). I stopped playing 1ed CTA after SFoS when I learned that Armageddon would be coming out, and I knew that existing hulls would be tinkered with yet again. I'm hoping (but wouldn't bet) that 2ed stats won't change much - if at all - from what they are now.

Then again, I'm disappointed with what's been done to the Centauri since their first incarnation..... :lol:

 

[Spideredd]

Just noticed the thread for this.


Will try and keep in context of the thread.

 

[Da Boss]

funny innit, new page same argument.lol :lol:

That's why I said "feel free to ignore if you agree or if you disagree". I didn't come here looking for an argument (yes you did, no I didn't, yes you did - by the way is this a five-minute argument, or the full half-hour?). I stopped playing 1ed CTA after SFoS when I learned that Armageddon would be coming out, and I knew that existing hulls would be tinkered with yet again. I'm hoping (but wouldn't bet) that 2ed stats won't change much - if at all - from what they are now.

Then again, I'm disappointed with what's been done to the Centauri since their first incarnation..... :lol:

Really - the previous incarnation of the Centauri was heavily critised and disdained due to the "Beam team". Now the new Centauri are different and prefer a "knife fight" now. What do you not like about them?

 

[KJ]

18" beams? Please. Centauri should have longer range weapons available to them. Maybe not on every ship, but certainly on the Primus, Octurian, and Adira. Even EA and League fleets can out-range them now. IMO, they've swung too far towards the "knife-fight" end of the spectrum.

I got in a game today at the LGS (Early EA vs. Minbari), and another person was looking through the new fleet book. He's a Centauri player, and I think he turned a shade of royal purple in anger when he saw the weapon ranges. While I'm not angry, to me they just don't say Centauri with such short range weapons.

 

[Nomad]

As someone who's just started playing Centauri, I can live with the nerfing of the Primus (I was expecting it to lose the beams altogether).

I'm just painting up my eighth Demos, ready to go knife fighting...with sledgehammers :twisted:

 

[Da Boss]

Sullust - 24" beams.........in a F arc.

the new twin linked double damage / AP double damage guns are very nice. The guns nicely outrange the Narn secondary batteries too - most useful

The fleet list is very different I would agree, it does not really suit L/R sniping - thats now the Minbari / Vorlon thing.

It also helps you can fire when coming out of a basic Jump point now......