Where now? A Brainstorming Thread.

[Da Boss]

thanks - probably worth having the D6 version for a couple of reasons - it sounds interesting, its likely a bit more survivable and gives you another ship of a different points value which helps when trying to work out lists

 

[Iapologisedon4chan]

Oh sure sure. Lyrans at the very least. I'm just saying the ACTA's rules framework can handle the little blighters really easily.

 

[Nomad]

Ramming was never part of SFB because it makes ship kills too easy. Ship explosions were toned down in later editions for the same reason due to the 'Kamikazi Romulan Condor' tactic (load a dreadnought with nukes, overload everything, prep all her shuttles as suicide bombs, fly her into the heart of an enemy fleet and hit the big red button. I know gamers who were actually *proud* of pulling that stunt).

Same universe, different game. I dunno. If you want to houserule it, there's nothing to stop you.

 

[Da Boss]

I like ramming hence the house rule note.... ramming is def a part of Star Trek - its pretty common in the later shows / films.

Ship explosions are quite powerful in ACTA: SF - more so than in previous editions, but I don't think you can do as you suggest - although again ST does seem to like the self destruct button........

 

[Nomad]

Personally, I love ramming as a tactic. With triremes.

When it comes to aeroplanes or spaceships, less so.

 

[Da Boss]

Ramming was a tactic in WWII - certain aircraft were even built to do it

also could be effect agains subs

It also very cinematic for spacecraft 8)

 

[Nerroth]

I saw the ISC mentioned in another thread, but figured it would be better to discuss them here.


*The rear-firing plasma-Fs mounted on their Ship Cards (as shown in this example) might seem dangerous at first glance, but they are designed more for seeking weapon defence than for offensive use. In this case, all they would need is a rule preventing more than one (or more than two in the case of the BB) being used against a ship in a given turn, but allowing them to be used against smaller targets normally (either offensively or defensively).


*For PPDs, those unfamiliar with FC should note that this weapon has already been changed significantly from its original incarnation in SFB. While the latter version splits the different wave-pulses into separate volleys on consecutive impulses, the former is consolidated into a single impulse (but still with separate volleys for the "splash" effects on the two adjacent shield facings).

I'm not sure just yet about how this might translate here, but I felt it worth mentioning the FC way of doing things for future reference.

 

[Iapologisedon4chan]

I saw the ISC mentioned in another thread, but figured it would be better to discuss them here.


*The rear-firing plasma-Fs mounted on their Ship Cards (as shown in this example) might seem dangerous at first glance, but they are designed more for seeking weapon defence than for offensive use. In this case, all they would need is a rule preventing more than one (or more than two in the case of the BB) being used against a ship in a given turn, but allowing them to be used against smaller targets normally (either offensively or defensively).


*For PPDs, those unfamiliar with FC should note that this weapon has already been changed significantly from its original incarnation in SFB. While the latter version splits the different wave-pulses into separate volleys on consecutive impulses, the former is consolidated into a single impulse (but still with separate volleys for the "splash" effects on the two adjacent shield facings).

I'm not sure just yet about how this might translate here, but I felt it worth mentioning the FC way of doing things for future reference.

I've already given the ISC a fair bit of thought. One of the first things I did in fact. I had two ideas regarding their Plasma Chasers.
1) Give them one that doesn't need to reload (a poor idea, especially since ISC ships a power hungry)
2) Give them 1 Plasma-F and two Plasma-D's which has a defensive fire ability (we discussed it at the start of this very thread in fact)

Since that time, I went and I looked at the Romulan PF ships, which have 5 banks of Plasma-F, but can only fire 2 at a time and came up with a rule that represented this by allowing them to fire on the same turn that they take the reload action.

Another idea, is to give Plasma-F's the ability to fire defensively, in a manner identical to Drones.

PPD's are incredibly easy to incorporate into the game, given that their effect actually mirrors the old Beam trait from B5:ACTA. For those of you unfamiliar with previous ACTA rulesets, Beam was a trait that allowed a weapon to hit on a 4+ regardless of the targets hull value (not something SF:CTA need concern itself with) and for each hit you make, it allows you to roll to hit again. This continues until you miss.

So, for the PPD I'd go 4"-16" / 2AD / Beam, Accurate+1, Precise, Multihit 2

I could go either way on multihit, and I could stand to tack on an extra 2" of maximum range.

And yes. That IS a minimum range value in there. Not sure how that affects long range calculation to be honest. So, we've got a weapon that on average will probably hit 4 times for 8 damage, and anything that get's past the shields will cause plenty of criticals as it scours off weapons and other things, which is pretty close to how it works in FedCom.

 

[Nomad]

The Reload rule is going to hit problems with the ISC.

On an ISC Star Cruiser (their Heavy Cruiser. A monster, equivalent to most empire's battlecruisers) you have two forward-firing plasma-Ss, six aft firing plasma-Fs and a nasty long-range weapon called a Plasmatic Pulsar Device (PPD).

'All' of these things need to Reload, but the penalty's the same whether the ship is Reloading one poxy plasma-F or all eight torpedoes and the PPD at the same time.


As for the multiple plasma-Fs, it doesn't need to be changed form SFB/FC IMHO.

Each ISC warship has two rear banks of plasma-Fs. One bank covers the R&P arcs, the other R&S.

Destroyers have just one torpedo in each bank, larger ships may have as many as four.

Each turn, the ship may launch one plasma-F from each bank at an enemy *ship*, or any or all of them at drones (yes, that will count as Defensive fire), fighters or PFs.

They are normal plasma-Fs which require reloading.

Simples (not the same as plasma-Ds, though, which were added to the game later. Some ISC specialist escorts carry them as well).

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

I never understood why you'd want to use a Plasma-F for anti-drone work. Talk about swatting a fly with a mallet (albeit an exceptionally accurate one). :lol:

 

[Iapologisedon4chan]

I never understood why you'd want to use a Plasma-F for anti-drone work. Talk about swatting a fly with a mallet (albeit an exceptionally accurate one). :lol:

Well, it's better than not having anything at all isn't it?

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

Aye, but I'd think Phaser-1s would be more energy efficient.

Then again, Ph-1 don't discourage tailgating by your enemies quite like plasma tail-lights.

 

[Nerroth]

Each turn, the ship may launch one plasma-F from each bank at an enemy *ship*, or any or all of them at drones (yes, that will count as Defensive fire), fighters or PFs.

Only the battleship can fire one torpedo per bank at a ship; smaller units (even the dreadnought) can only fire one from either the port OR starboard bank in a single turn.

Aye, but I'd think Phaser-1s would be more energy efficient.

Then again, Ph-1 don't discourage tailgating by your enemies quite like plasma tail-lights.

They aren't quite Phaser-1s, but the side-mounted phaser-3s on most ISC ships of the line were added as refits in the years prior to the Pacification, as were the banks of aft-firing plasma-Fs.

 

[Iapologisedon4chan]

Aye, but I'd think Phaser-1s would be more energy efficient.

Then again, Ph-1 don't discourage tailgating by your enemies quite like plasma tail-lights.

Yeah, but you can't use Ph-1's unless you take a special order preventing you from attacking.

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

I'm not sure what you mean, any phaser in the proper arc can be used defensively against drones or plasma launched against that ship without having to use a special action.

 

[Iapologisedon4chan]

I'm not sure what you mean, any phaser in the proper arc can be used defensively against drones or plasma launched against that ship without having to use a special action.

Not in SF:CTA. It's PH-3's only unless you take a Special Action that means you can only use them defensively.

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

I'm all for the increases in simplicity (as even FedCom is too rules heavy for my taste in this day and age, save single ships duels), but that simply doesn't make sense IMO. Its no harder to track if a Phaser 1 has fired this turn than a Phaser 3 and makes a race like the Gorn much more vulnerable even to their nemesis, the Romulans (and vice-versa).

 

[Iapologisedon4chan]

I'm all for the increases in simplicity (as even FedCom is too rules heavy for my taste in this day and age, save single ships duels), but that simply doesn't make sense IMO. Its no harder to track if a Phaser 1 has fired this turn than a Phaser 3 and makes a race like the Gorn much more vulnerable even to their nemesis, the Romulans (and vice-versa).

I believe this point has already been explained in the blog.

http://blog.mongoosepublishing.co.uk/?p=52

 

[GalagaGalaxian]

I see, so Phaser-3s can be used both defensively and offensively. I guess that works (no tracking if a weapon has fired afterall). At least the defensive fire special action is automatic. I guess that means "escort/aegis" frigates/destroyers hanging near bigger ships are going to be a semi-common thing against seeking weapon heavy enemies.

I don't mean to sound like someone unwilling to accept change, its just a bit hard to "unlearn what you have learned", to quote a small green muppet from the wrong Star Franchise, ya know?

 

[Nomad]

I'm all for the increases in simplicity (as even FedCom is too rules heavy for my taste in this day and age, save single ships duels), but that simply doesn't make sense IMO. Its no harder to track if a Phaser 1 has fired this turn than a Phaser 3 and makes a race like the Gorn much more vulnerable even to their nemesis, the Romulans (and vice-versa).

I believe this point has already been explained in the blog.

http://blog.mongoosepublishing.co.uk/?p=52

That's an article from last September. I can't find anything in the rulebook that limits Defensive Fire to phaser-3s.

Unless I've missed something, I think that piece refers to an earlier playtest draft of the rules.

As I read the book, *any* phaser can fire in self-defence, and under IDF!, any phaser can shoot at drones attacking friendly ships out to their maximum ranges (subject to firing arc limitations).

Believe me, as a Kzinti, I much prefer the version in the Planet Mongoose post :twisted: