Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: A Call to Arms Star Fleet: ACTASF Book 1.2 (The ADB Revision): Transporters
  Subtopic Posts   Updated

There is a simple glitch in these in that the bases for the stands are larger than transporter range and since stands cannot overlap nobody can use a transporter. The obvious and simple solution is to increase transporter range (perhaps to five or six or seven or eight inches; that's up to Tony Thomas not ADB).
We do plan to implement boarding party rules (probably in Book Two).
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 03:55 pm: Edit

This is a minor technical glitch (transporter radius is less than half of two non-overlapping stands). Nobody noticed because there were no Marine boarding party rules yet. Simple solution is to extend the transporter range to 5 inches or maybe 3 inches.

Anybody got a reason we need to pick any particular range? Anybody see anything else wrong here that we need to fix?

By Matthew Potter (Neonpico) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Keep in mind how Transporters affect T-bombs. (I don't have the rules, so I don't know if T-Bombs are part of the rules yet. But I bet they will be by the time the product reaches end-of-life)

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 04:17 pm: Edit

No T Bombs in ACTASF (or FedCom) and G.O.D. willing there never will.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 04:35 pm: Edit

That will be up the players, not me. If they want an SFB rule (assuming we can find a way to actually get a valid poll) they can have it. They won't get it just because some cowboy in Texas who doesn't play the game thinks they want it.

That said, I think we might want to be sure we do this revision in a way that allows us to add if later if we want to.

By Charles Lister (Daboss) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 05:32 pm: Edit

I would agree with this - There were ACTA boarding rules that worked fine in previous incarantions that we found strange were not carried over to join with transporter rules. We assumed it was a SFU/ACTA convergence issue

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 06:16 pm: Edit

I haven't seen the ACTA marine rules and cannot comment on whether they would be SFU compliant.

By Charles Lister (Daboss) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 06:29 pm: Edit

I can forward them if of interest to you - Pretty sure Tony also has them but same offer open to him if it is of help / assistance.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 06:37 pm: Edit

As Charles notes above, in A Call to Arms: Noble Armada, there is a Special Action on page 19 which sets up boarding actions, and a short set of rules on page 14-15 governing what happens when such actions are resolved.

The details are different to what one would see in the SFU, since space combat in the Fading Suns/Noble Armada setting takes place at low sublight speeds between ships which use "blue shield" technologies that do not prevent "solid" objects (such as missiles or grapple guns) from making contact against a target vessel.

But the actual rules governing the boarding actions themselves may be viable here, once the means of getting the Marines from one ship to another is handled by transporter rather than grapple gun.

By Charles Lister (Daboss) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 06:44 pm: Edit

ACTA B5 had extensive rules for boarding via shuttles which would work quite well (just changing Shuttles to Transporters)

I did not like Noble Armadas version being able to sue the opponents ship immediately but that was a universe specific aspect.

B5 also had crew stat which could be severely affected by boardng actions.............

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 06:47 pm: Edit

That is all up to Tony, not me.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 06:55 pm: Edit


The conceit used in ACtA:NA is similar to the one in FC, in that "if the Marines are gone, the crew do what they are told". There would be no need to target a ship's crew in ACtA:SF, at least when going after "normal" civilian or military hulls.

(One might come up with an exception for Orions or Eagle-series Romulans, to account for any suicide bombs triggered by the defenders to avoid capture.)

By Lee Storey (Storeylf) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 07:04 pm: Edit

"I did not like Noble Armadas version being able to sue the opponents ship immediately but that was a universe specific aspect."

I like the idea of suing the enemy ships - new heavy weapon, the lawyer! overloads to barrister

Some typos are just so much better than others :D

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 08:02 pm: Edit

We actually published rules for our strategic game in which the Federation got a legal injunction against the Klingon fleet to stop them from invading.

By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 08:10 pm: Edit

First off: Sorry for the delays in posting here, but my wife went into the hospital Wednesday, had surgery Thursday, and came home tonight.
I have downloaded these threads and will process them and have responses to many of them in the next day or two.

By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 08:12 pm: Edit

Charles: I do have copies of both NA and B5 rulebooks.
I have read the boarding party actions and can see several ways to implement them into ACTASF.

I had made comments thusly to Matthew and assumed Boarding Parties would be added as part of ACTASF2.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, November 15, 2013 - 09:51 pm: Edit

Yeah, this topic is just for the transporter rule, not the Marines.

By Iain McGhee (Irmcg) on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 08:17 am: Edit

I'd consider increasing it further, perhaps 7". Seems closer to it's FC equivalent (outside ph-3 effective range, inside photon 50% hit probability).

By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 09:27 am: Edit

I have been using 3", since transporter range is 5 hexes in SFB. I assumed that ranges were halved for ACTA:SF, so 5 /2 = 2.5, rounded up to 3". It allows for the funky 2 1/8" diameter new style bases (which I hated, never used as they complicated transport).

By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 10:08 am: Edit

It needs to be more than just base-to-base contact.
I had originally suggested 5 inches (since 5 hexes, but Iain has a good point.

Mega-hex are 1.25 inches. 5 of those is 6.25 inches.
In Fed Comm, Phaser-3s will hit out to 15 inches - although its not likely and will do little damage at that range.
Range band 6-8 gives a 33% chance of hitting, and that's reduced to ~16% chance between 9-15 hexes.

ACTASF Phaser-3s have a range of 6 inches.

7 Inches is roughly half the maximum range of a phaser-3 in Fed Comm, and all weapons seem to have had their ACTASF ranges set based on effective damage range, which is usually about 50% of Fed Comm range.

30 minutes ago, I was sure 5 inches was the answer (and it still may turn out to be...), but now I'm looking at extending it to 6 or 7 inches.
6 inches still leaves you in range of phaser-3s... 7 inches doesn't.
Hmmm, one more thing to add to the playtest list.

By John Williams (Johndw) on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 08:46 pm: Edit

I'm going to be a rebel and say 8 inches for transporter range.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Will there be a separate thread to discuss Marine operations at some point? (Particularly one that could further look into the issue of boarding actions, and see if they might be worth factoring into the new revision rather than leaving for a future expansion.)

By Charles Lister (Daboss) on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 08:52 pm: Edit

Indeed I am looking forward to Klingon and Gorn boarding partes slaughtering their way through the crew of enemy vessels............but I am a 40k player so thats standard fare for me.

By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 09:03 pm: Edit

John: Your reasoning for 8 inches?
I'm still exploring options, but would like to have in game reasons when I present my version of the opposed to "gut feelings"

By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 09:07 pm: Edit

Gary: The quick answer is, Yes.

But that's a discussion for later.
Right now, I'm not considering anything that is not already in the rulebook.

ACTASF2 will be discussed at the appropriate time.

Do be aware though, that all considerations for revised rules in book 1.2 are being made with an eye towards future empires / weapons / and systems.

I'd like to avoid pigeonholing ourselves this early in the process to the point that an existing item in the SFU cannot be added later because it doesn't work within the framework established in book 1.2

By John Williams (Johndw) on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Tony: 7 Inches seems to have been the most reasonable suggestion based on the range of phaser-3 and half the photon torpedo range, but I don't much like odd-numbers since almost everything in the game has an even number for range (darn you photons!), so 8 inches is just a rounding up 'fudge' factor.

Even numbers makes the game 'easier' for any effects you want to/could potentially add for having any situations involving half the range of a system.

I don't know if any situations could arise where things like transporters, science labs, or tractor beams could be more or less effective based on range, power drain, ship being crippled, or whatnot, but having an even 8 inches makes it easier.

Just as an example, maybe if a ship is crippled, transporters only work half range. 3.5 inches isnt impossible to measure, but 4 could be easier.

By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 10:11 pm: Edit

Transporters work... or they don't work.
Nothing in the SFU reduces the effective range.
At least nothing that I can recall.

That means that exactly 37.63 seconds from now, Gary will post the complete list of everything that does reduce the range od a tractor beam.

By John Williams (Johndw) on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 10:21 pm: Edit

I could see scenarios involving.. whatever space weather you want to make up that would reduce transporter range by half, or beaming down to an under/ground base which has dense material or shielding preventing full range of transporters. Anyways, its just something I thought could be considered.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 10:44 pm: Edit

Even I am trying to hold off on Fun Times With Transporters And Tractor Beams for the time being.

I do think that, as a part of the "core" mechanics in SFB and FC - I forget about Star Fleet Starmada - the part about using one's transporters to perform boarding actions was a conspicuous omission from ACtA:SF book 1, and one I was hoping could be reconsidered for the revision (rather than being left to one of the expansions).

But, I don't want to derail this thread any further, so I'll leave it at that for now.

By John Williams (Johndw) on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 11:05 pm: Edit

Speaking of tractor beams, will the range be revised for these as well, or does it all ready fit as an appropriate range converted from the source?

Add a Message

This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation