ACTASF: Q&A
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: A Call to Arms Star Fleet: ACTASF: Q&A
1. What is the scale of this game? What does 1" equal in terms of kilometers, miles, leagues, furlongs, meters, or whatever measuring system is being used?
2. Is 2" as close as two ships can get to one another? When their bases touch...assuming 2" bases? If 2" is nose to nose (a few meters or kilometers), that would really make the rest of the ranges kinda wonky wouldn't it?
Converting to ACTASF from being a SFB player (not that I am giving up SFB by any means) can be a little disconcerting sometimes.
IIRC Terrain only comes into effect when targeting a unit inside or if the Terrain blocks the line of sight. So a ship shooting out of Terrain has no penalties unless specifically noted by the rules.
Ranges get a let screwy due to the ACTA rules.
-Speed wise 1" = 2 hexes. (Fast Ships and Ships using All Power to Engines travel 16" or 32 hexes, while most Ships travelling at speed 12 are doing 24 hexes)
-Weapons ranges were pretty much translated 1 for 1 from Federation Commander so there is a slight disconnect that was made for game play feel.
Yes if using Miniatures with standard base Range 2 is the closest two Ships can ever get. Thus you see rules that require base to base contact to work.
Thanks again Dal.
Yes the weapon ranges do seem a bit funky. Disruptors would be 48 hexes...must be X2 huh. 
Seems and bit much but whatever. Drones are workable at 24" but 36" would have been much better (3 turns like they should be). Plasma at 24" gives it an extra 18 hexes over SFB/FC...so good for the plasma chuckers...but then plasma bolts are penalized twice in this game so I guess it evens out (or just avoid bolting). Phaser-3s are way more effective at max overload range than in the source games, so that does help the Kzinits a lot (.33 chance of a SFB/FC damage point at 8 hexes as opposed to 67% chance of a ACTASF damage point {or about 3 FC points} at 6").
So yea, its a bit weird when you are used to the SFU working a certain way and then it doesn't. Even though traditional SFB/FC tactics kinda go out the window, its still a pretty good game.
Thanks again Dal.
Yes the weapon ranges do seem a bit funky. Disruptors would be 48 hexes...must be X2 huh. Seems and bit much but whatever. Drones are workable at 24" but 36" would have been much better (3 turns like they should be). Plasma at 24" gives it an extra 18 hexes over SFB/FC...so good for the plasma chuckers...but then plasma bolts are penalized twice in this game so I guess it evens out (or just avoid bolting).
I noticed that Phaser-3s are way more effective at max overload range than in the source games, so that does help the Kzinits a lot. You have a 50% chance of a ACTASF damage point (or about 3 FC points) at 6" or what would be 12 hexes but only a 33% chance of a single damage point at 8 hexes in SFB/FC. That Fed battleship needs to get its full complement of phaser-3 attack die (12) since it has 3 ph-Gs. Would be fine Klink buster.
So yea, its a bit weird when you are used to the SFU working a certain way and then it doesn't. Even though traditional SFB/FC tactics kinda go out the window, its still a pretty good game.
I have a question on ship points.
The only difference between the Romulan RHK and the NHK is that the RHK has 1 Plasma R (F) and the NHK has 2 Plasma S (FH), both ships cost 240 points.
The only difference between the Gorn CS and the CM is that the CS has 1 Plasma R (F) and the CN has 2 Plasma S (FH). The CS costs 195 points and the CM 210.
Why does swapping 2 Plasma-S (FH) for 1 Plasma R (F) have no effect on the cost of the ship for the Romulans, but save the Gorn 15 points?
The Rom RHK takes the two S-launchers off the engines (requiring a special order) so that the R-launcher is on the pylon between the engines (additional framing), the Gorns just merge two adjacent launchers into one larger launcher...
The SFB SSDs show the same BPV for both Gorn ships.
The Romulans also share the same BPV values on their two ships.
The same applies if you look at the cost of the ships in Federation Commander.
Both Gorn Ships cost the same and both Romulan ships cost the same.
While its true that the ships are based off of the Federation Commander version...and for the most part match them in every aspect... they are not always 100% copies.
Matthew Sprange of Mongoose Publishing wrote the original edition of ACTASF and set the point values for the two Gorn ships in question. The reason for the seeming discrepancy is:
Not every system translates from one system to the other... ACTASF does nothing about how many warp reactors you have, nor how many boxes on the #6 shield. Other systems are accounted for - but have little impact on the game. Labs for instance.
Then there's the way scenarios are set up.
in both SFB and Fed Comm - the scenario designer sets the forces for both sides. ACTASF on the other hand gives you a point value and lets you pick ships to meet that value. In this case, why would anyone ever choose an S torp over an R torp for the same price?
Matthew wanted to sell miniatures... lots of miniatures. If both ships were the same price - everyone would field the cheaper ship... and never buy the other miniature.
With this change... you might be tempted to use the cheaper ship to 'squeeze in' under the force limit.
And then there's also the way damage works.
The Plasma-R uses a single stat line whereas two Plasma-S use two lines.
Having two lines gives you much more flexibility. With 90-degree arcs instead of 60-degree - the two arcs gives you much wider coverage.
Two separate weapons can be fired at two separate targets.
If you take a critical hit that disabled one weapon bank, the R is only one bank and you're out of heavy hitters.
The S on the other hand is two lines (and therefore two banks).
Then there was the play testiing. Our group had no Gorn fans - so we didn't do a lot of testing of the Gorn; but hopefully someone did and their play testing results are what led to the point discrepancy.
While not necessarily an actual explanation - I hope this helps a bit.
Thanks for the answer Tony.
If the advantages of 2xPlasma S (FH) over 1xPlasma R (F) you point out mean that a single plasma R is not as effective as two Plasma-S you would expect a points difference.
The “selling miniatures” would have been more understandable if the Romulan ships had the points difference not the Gorn. On the shopping cart – there is one model for both the CS and CM (M-36007), while the Romulans have MP_33004 (Novahawk) and MP_33009 (Royalhawk).
If you were using the points system to persuade people to buy a specific model you would want a point difference between the RNK and NHK not the CS and CM. After all if I have 5 CM models I can use them as either CM’s or CS’s as I wish, the Romulans would need to buy 5 NHK and 5 RHK models to have that flexibility.
Of course the NHK model is also the FHK, and there could be, or have been, plans for a distinct Gorn CS model in the future.
However none of this explains why the Gorns get a point reduction for Plasma-R and the Romulans do not – I would expect either both races to get a reduction or neither. Although I wouldn’t except the same reduction as the cloaking device complicates things, but not to the extent that all disadvantages of replacing 2 Plasma S with 1 Plasma R are completely negated.
I am currently in the middle of a Romulan vs Gorn campaign using the Campaign System in the rule book. While details for pervious battles would be hazy at best if you think it would be helpful I could start sending you reports from our battles (we play about once a month)
I'm not certain why Mongoose chose the points the way they did.
We probably should have caught it during version 1.2... but in the last 18 months - you are the first person to point it out.
The most likely reason would be the advantage of two torpedoes over one... which by extension should have been carried to the Romulans as well. But again, we are talking Mongoose.
I'm 99.9999999999999999999999999 ad nasuem percent certain it's too late to change the value of the Royalhawk at this point; so we may just have to live with that one.
I have added the 1xR vs. 2xS torp to the list of items to double check on future ships, so it will not happen in the future.
I would however; appreciate any reports.
Please send them to:
tony [dot] l [dot] Thomas [at] comcast [dot] net.
I know its "late" in the Editing process, but something I thought about the other day when designing a base assault mission. In 1.0 anytime a Immobile unit takes a Impulse Crit, the Crit is ignored: so 1/3 Crits on a base have no effect. In 1.2 I've looked high and low in the PDF, and found nothing like this. If this was intentionally changed, can someone confirm that.
Also can a Immobile unit take the "move slower" power drain? I don't think so but for bases with reloading heavy weapons it seems odd to need to fire less to do that. I should note I've never played with bases in SFB / FC, so I don't have the best idea of how much power they have to play with.
Bases do not need a note for Impulse Crits because there is not a rule that says you reroll a Critical Effect if the Unit does not have the one that is rolled.
I will recheck later but yes they can use Power Drain but since they are immoble they are already barred from taking movement based penalties. You would have to accept one of the other options.
Will the Franz Joseph Federation Destroyer family of ships get ACTA stats/cards?
Yes, in due time.
I think they're going to be in the HF newsletter next Feb or March. I don't have the schedule in front of me.
1) The campaign rules mention possibly being able to use ships intended for other missions, but I don't see anything that actually prevents you from deploying the same ships in subsequent battles. In the original rules you could only use a ship once per campaign turn, but here there aren't any campaign turns. Am I missing something? Is it possible to tie up your forces and be unable to use them under some circumstances?
2) Are you able to refuse a challenge? Is there any penalty for doing so?
3) Can't an aggressive player just issue challenges immediately after each battle without giving other players a chance to do so? Is this just a Wheaton's Law thing?
4) In a multiplayer campaign could one player lurk and only challenge when an opponent is weakened by several losses? This seems like a viable strategy (and really one of the only strategic choices available here) but it also seems cheesy and degenerate.
5) What are some examples of meaningful strategic choices in a campaign?