Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through November 12, 2014	25		11/12 02:57pm
	Archive through January 03, 2015	25		01/03 06:00pm

I also need to stat up the ROFL5 for our in-house use.

By Jair Bobys (Jairb) on Saturday, January 03, 2015 - 06:05 pm: Edit

I like the ruling. It is simple.

We'll be more than happy to help play test the ROFL5 for explicit imbalance.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, January 04, 2015 - 12:39 am: Edit

As I recall, this came up in discussions for Edition One, and Matthew said the de-cloak "movement" is to represent the fact that you weren't really sure where the ship was while it was cloaked. The ship doesn't actually move, per say, but rather is revealed in its true location. However, for some of us, this never explained just how the ship got from one side of the asteroid field / mine field / etc to the other without risk of taking damage.

In short, I like Tony's fix much more. A few Edition One players may think otherwise.....


Garth L. Getgen

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Sunday, January 04, 2015 - 03:21 am: Edit

I think otherwise. Now you are penalizing decloaking ships that appear to not move at all by making them easier to hit? Is that really the intent?

Cloaked ships should be a set speed what happened to KISS here?

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, January 04, 2015 - 04:01 am: Edit

How about this: Upon de-cloaking, the ship "appears" at its true location up to six inches (6") in any direction from its last assumed location (where is "was" while cloaked), with a facing +/- 45-degress from the assumed facing. If this causing the ship to "teleport" over an asteroid/mine field or other terrain that could cause damage of a ship under cloak, treat this "displacement" as movement for purposes of damage. The ship may then move up to eight inches (8") (the max speed while cloaked) as its normal movement, subject to all applicable rules.


Garth L. Getgen

By Jair Bobys (Jairb) on Sunday, January 04, 2015 - 11:12 am: Edit

Dal, treating the ship that uses Disengage Cloaking Device! as moving the actual distance displaced helps it rather than hurts it. It gets to mitigate its risk with respect to terrain but Seeking Weapons hit based on Maximum Speed rather than actual movement. Its Maximum Speed is still 12" unless it' s affected by prior crits.

This is the best of both worlds and help cloaking ships really need, in my opinion.

By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Sunday, January 04, 2015 - 11:20 am: Edit

Dal: ???

I'm not sure I understand your comment, or maybe I just missed something. How are we making them easier to hit?

all my statement did (or at least was intended to do) was establish a number to use when displacing into an asteroid field. The now 'de-cloaked' ship still has the same max speed as any other ship... so chances to hit it should not have changed. Unless I over-looked a crucial factor...

By Lee Storey (Storeylf) on Sunday, January 04, 2015 - 11:31 am: Edit

That probably needs clarifying then - I would have seen the max move as 6", and hence vulnerable to seekers. It doesn't have a normal move, but may moved only up to 6", that seems to be saying it's 'current' max speed for the turn is 6", in the same way a power drained ship has a 'current' max speed of 6".

By Jair Bobys (Jairb) on Sunday, January 04, 2015 - 11:32 am: Edit

When do Hit and Run Raids actually happen?

The reason I ask is the CALL-OUT NOTE titled CRITICAL-AND-RUN RAIDS on page 108 of Captain's Log #49. It reads "... you can move your remaining ships to within two inches of a target ship with down shields (or shields you expect to knock down during the attack phase) ..."

There is no entry in the Basic Sequence of Play on page 5 for Hit and Run Raids. My literal reading of the Special Action Hit and Run Raid! On page 18 had me believing that they're conducted immediately in the Movement Phase. That would provide no opportunity to "help" your opponent lower shields though.

Was there a change in sequencing from the time material was due for CL49 that affected this?

By Lee Storey (Storeylf) on Sunday, January 04, 2015 - 11:48 am: Edit

The following is on page 9 (tighter turns):
"Ships using the reduced movement penalty for
a Power Drain special action are assumed to have a maximum speed
equal to the reduced speed as designated by the Power Drain penalty."

Yet that is not noted anywhere else, including the power drain section.

This should probably be said loud and clear under the power drain move penalty section, as it's effect on current max speed has wider implications than just tighter turns (e.g. seekers). The turning section is not where I'd expect to go if I needed to show someone that rule. I had to Ctrl-F and search for 'maximum speed' throughout the document looking for that bit.

By Jair Bobys (Jairb) on Sunday, January 04, 2015 - 08:57 pm: Edit

Ok. Back to Asteroid Fields.

Page 27 states that "Shuttles are destroyed by any asteroid damage ..." How are Seeking Weapons affected? It seems pretty likely that each Drone would be destroyed by a successful hit like Shuttles. How are Plasma Torpedoes degraded? For simplicity they should probably be treated such that each hit removes one Attack Die.

What is the speed of a Plasma Torpedo for purposes of computing the Attack Dice with which the Asteroid Field "attacks?" I'm guessing 16" Maximum Speed based on SFB / FC.

By Lee Storey (Storeylf) on Wednesday, January 07, 2015 - 03:25 pm: Edit

The End phase, and related.


1) There are a few criticals that say at the end of the end phase roll or take additional criticals.

The turn sequence on page 5 shows an end phase step just called 'End phase crew quality checks'. This is not described in the end phase detailed description on page 6. However, it is not the end of the end phase as there is another step afterwards for escaping ships (also not described on page 6).

Max Warp now uses the term 'the final step' of the end phase.

So:
A) Which is first? the 'end' of end phase or 'final step' of end phase. This could be pretty crucial if ships can escape before having to roll for those chance based escalations which stop then escaping (or just kill them).

B) is either the crew based checks or the ship escape steps noted on page 5 meant to refer to the pseudo escalation and Max warp actions? Which might answer A above. The crew quality check step is described on page 26 for scenario objectives, so it is has a purpose outside these checks, making it somewhat vague whether it was intended to be for pseudo escalates as well, and it is certainly not the end of the end phase.

2) Is the escaping ships step of the end phase also when ships simply moving off the table are actually removed (giving time to shoot them), or are they removed immediately during their movement?


3) Labs are done during the end phase. When? is it before escalations get a chance to kill off the lab trait, or after damage control might have brought them back?

4) Probes - as above.

5) If during the escalation you go from weapons level 3 to weapons level 4 does the crew check based Dilithium crit also get checked that end phase. Vice versa, if a crew based crit increase gives you an escalate elsewhere does that take effect then. I guess not to the last bit as true escalation is before either the crew check step or the 'end' of the end phase.

6) I assume the owner chooses the order he resolves things (e.g. to minimize risk of a crew penalty from one check affecting the next).

7) Orions gain an automatic dilithium crit at the end of the end phase for using their Boost. Is this before or after the 'end' of end phase or 'final step' in Q1? Again the order can have quite an affect if it would push you to level 5 and then you make the explode check, but would give you another turn to escape or repair if it was the other way around, or if it is after the max warp now SA then you escape, if it is before it prevents escape.

By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Wednesday, January 07, 2015 - 04:06 pm: Edit

@Lee (and everyone else) - I have provided a clarified paragraph for Disengage Cloaking Device: that explicitly states the speed of the ship for seeking weapon impact calculations.

@Jair: In Federation Commander, Hit and Run raids take place after the Offensive Fire phase. I had intended for it to be that way in ACTASF as well. I guess the sequencing wasn't as clearly spelled out as I had thought.
I have provided ADB with revised text for the Hit and Run Raid action that states the transport occurs at the end of the transporting ships Attack Phase.

@Lee: Sorry. I thought it would be obvious that if your ship that could normally move 12" took a Power Drain penalty would be limited in their max speed, but I have sent revised text in to explicitly state that.

@ Jair: Seeking weapons / Asteroids - This one as already been discussed and the revised text sent to ADB. Seeking weapons use the same mechanic as shuttles. One hit from an asteroid will destroy one shuttle / drone or remove one AD of Plasma Torpedo warhead strength.

By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Wednesday, January 07, 2015 - 04:11 pm: Edit

End Phase:

Just rules lawyer the sequence the way that best benefits you.

We [Our group] has played well over 500 games and the step-by-step minutia of the End Phase has never been an issue.

If it will help though, please email me a list of every SINGLE action that can take place during a game and I'll create a comprehensive, omnibus type sequence of play with every single possibility covered.

By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Wednesday, January 07, 2015 - 04:23 pm: Edit

Detailed End Phase:

End Phase:
Compulsory Movement:
Complete any compulsory movement. All compulsory movement is simultaneous– any ship that is destroyed or moved off the map takes no further place in the game and skips all remaining End Phase steps.

Damage Control:
Damage Control is completed simultaneously for all ships.

Check for Escalation
Any ship with one or more critical scores at (or above) the Escalate level roll for escalation at this point.
While this should be simultaneous, it’s sometimes difficult to do so. If necessary, roll for Escalation in Initiative order with players alternating turns. Each player make choose which ship checks for escalation in the order of their preference.

End of Turn
Step 1: Orion Pirates gain the automatic Dilithium Chamber critical
Step 2: Make Crew Quality Checks required due to Critical Damage Scores.
Step 3: Make any other required Crew Quality Checks.
Step 4: Roll for information obtained by Labs.
Step 5: Roll for information gained by Probes functioning as Labs.
Step 6: Ships using the Maximum Warp Now! Special action are removed from the board.

By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Wednesday, January 07, 2015 - 04:24 pm: Edit

Lee: I believe that answers your questions regarding order.
If I missed something, please let me know.

By Jair Bobys (Jairb) on Wednesday, January 07, 2015 - 04:53 pm: Edit

That refined sequence for the Detailed End Phase looks great. It will prevent such beardy behavior as Orions using Dilithium Chamber Boost and repairing the resulting critical on the same turn.

By Lee Storey (Storeylf) on Wednesday, January 07, 2015 - 08:11 pm: Edit

When you wrote the rules and have played 500 games of course everything seems obvious. When you first get the rules and have never played before it is totally different. It's a well known phenomena that you always read what you thought you meant and knew what you meant, and not what you actually said. It's why we have play testers (hopefully) and proof readers.

"Just rules lawyer the sequence the way that best benefits you."

I have no interest in rules lawyering. I do have a keen interest in not having to work out what was meant in the middle of games due to rules being too vague/casual or overusing the same term (be it 'hit' or several things competing to be the 'end' action). Discussions mid game are the times you are going to be biased, or find that your plan failed due to a misunderstanding between players as to what the rule was and someones game is some what spoilt by vagueness of the rule book. I hate having discussions at those times and it always leaves a bad taste which ever way it goes.

Several years ago (was it ~3 years now when ACTA first came out) a group of us all bought the game and some minis at a wargame fair and arranged to meet and have a few games a week or so later. We all turned up with different interpretations of the rules, and not just on minor little points, which became clear as we started playing and we all had different views on combat due to the whole overuse of the word 'hit'. Or how shields worked as you took crits etc. It was also clear on discussion that there was no clear cut answer in the rule book on what were core fundamentals. None of us had played any other ACTA games before (not that we should have had to) so the mechanics were new to us. It was these questions that were being asked on the Mongoose forums as well. I have no doubt those who wrote that book and played it extensively thought it was all obvious, but as far as we were concerned it was a pretty poor 'rule' book even though it looked like there might be a good game in there.

Being more campaign oriented (and wanting to save ships) the 'max warp now' question is exactly the sort of thing that will comes up in our games. Sure the labs etc is more situational, but when it does come up it will be because the victory conditions are requiring them. Which is exactly the time I am NOT wanting to have a discussion as to timing and feel that the game was won or lost based on a dice roll as to the rules intention.


I can see that you are getting annoyed/stressed by what you see as nitpicking, and apologize, that isn't my intent. I will do as I did before and drop out rather than risk further such conversations.

By Jair Bobys (Jairb) on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 12:22 am: Edit

Page 15 Interception states the following: "These are resolved in the Long-Range Drone Attack Phase as impacts on the Forward arc (i.e., a "head-on attack"). Such attacks do not receive the -1 modifier applied to a standard long-range attack."

Is this meant to indicate that the Drone gets a net +1 attack modifier by ignoring the Long-Range Attack -1 but retaining the head-on attack +1?

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 07:14 am: Edit

The second. The -1 does not but the +1 for a head on still applies. Do not drive over drones.

By Jair Bobys (Jairb) on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 11:42 am: Edit

If that's the intent this verbiage seems unnecessarily confusing. Why not simply have Interception be an extra +1 cancelling Long Range -1 and leaving Impact to the Forward Arc +1?

It feels like the rule is going far afield to avoid one step of simple addition.

By Dal Downing (Rambler) on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 06:27 pm: Edit

Jair it seems pretty clear and to the point to me vur, we will see what Tony says. I say leave it as is.

By Jair Bobys (Jairb) on Monday, February 02, 2015 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Respectfully, the table on Page 14 makes no mention of Interception cancelling the -1 for Long-range but the description text at the bottom of Page 15's left column describes the effect. At the very least, those two should be brought into agreement.

Cancelling effects through description text is the same as adding exceptions. In a d6 system that relies on +1 / -1 modifiers it seems easier to just stack the modifiers. I understand it's just an opinion but there it is nonetheless.

By Stephen Stewart (Stevestewart) on Friday, December 06, 2019 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Apologies if someone has already asked this, but for conditional modifiers to the hit roll the following statement is made:

"A unit within 8” not having the Escort trait but ACTIVELY assisting the target: -1"

What does "actively assisting" mean? I also don't understand why a ship with the escort trait doesn't help?

Thanks Tony - enjoying Book 2!

By David Bostwick (Zarquon) on Friday, December 06, 2019 - 09:36 pm: Edit

A unit is actively assisting another unit if it is using its weapons to defend that unit.

If the assisting unit does not have the Escort trait, it suffers a -1 penalty to do this. If it does have the escort trait, there is no penalty, so it is not included as a conditional modifier.

The statement is somewhat over specified, probably in an attempt to make it clearer.

It could have been alternately stated as:

Using Defensive Fire to engage a weapon not targeted on the firing unit: -1.

This would rely on the player to recall that the 2 units must be within 8" and that the Escort trait makes the unit exempt from this penalty.

By Stephen Stewart (Stevestewart) on Saturday, December 07, 2019 - 10:39 am: Edit

Thanks David, but I don't think that it says that. The statement is made as a conditional modifier on the to hit roll of a seeking weapon, not as a modifier for defensive fire. The comment about non-escorts assisting with defensive fire using phasers suffering a -1 penalty to their defensive fire is noted at page 22 of the ACTASF 1.2 rule book.

Having said that I suspect you are right, it is meant to cover the non-escort defensive fire option. Be interested to see what Scoutdad says!

By David Bostwick (Zarquon) on Saturday, December 07, 2019 - 11:26 am: Edit

Stephen,

FYI, the latest version, ACtASF 1.2 Rev N3, no longer contains that line.


The following conditional modifiers are then applied to the To Hit roll:
Impact to the forward arc: +1 (This applies to the rear arc if ship is flying backwards.)
Speed > 12 and impact in non-forward arc: -1
Accurate +X trait: +X
Target using Take Evasive Action!: -1
Target is Immobile: +1
Interception attack: +1 (replaces forward arc attack bonus)
Terrain effects — Nebulae: -2
Target is Nimble: -1
Anti-Drone X score of target: -X
Small Target modifier: -1
Long-range attack by drone swarm: -1

By Stephen Stewart (Stevestewart) on Saturday, December 07, 2019 - 03:23 pm: Edit

Thanks David - I will now go and see why I haven't received an update email! That now makes complete sense.

By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - 12:56 pm: Edit

The question was asked:
"A unit within 8” not having the Escort trait but ACTIVELY assisting the target: -1"

What does "actively assisting" mean? I also don't understand why a ship with the escort trait doesn't help?

The question was answered:
As previously stated... Actively assisting means using your weapons to assist in the defense of another unit.
It probably was 'over specific', but you would be amazed at the number of questions along the line of..."the rules do not say I can't do X with Y, so it must be possible!"
We originally tried to over compensate, then realized we were getting bogged down in fringe case minutia and dialed it back a bit.

As for why a ship with the Escort trait doesn't help...
Perhaps there aren't any in this battle?
Perhaps they have been lured into an advantageous position?

The option must exist for any unit to help support another, but with no penalties for non-escort; there's no reason to have escorts at all.