|Archive through November 21, 2013||25||11/26 12:56pm|
|Archive through December 29, 2013||25||01/02 10:03am|
|Archive through February 04, 2014||25||03/14 03:52pm|
|By Lee Storey (Storeylf) on Tuesday, February 04, 2014 - 03:25 pm: Edit|
I can't see the points values being based on the FC ones - the FC ones are pretty poorly balanced to start with, and then on top of that ACTA is a very different game system - what is good in FC is not always good in ACTA.
On the other hand I'm not aware of any 'system' for working out ACTA points.
|By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, February 04, 2014 - 03:51 pm: Edit|
In the case of Starmada, Daniel Kast made a designer's note on this topic, which I quote from Page 85 of the Admiralty version of Romulan Armada:
There will be a few things that stand out for experienced SFU players: perhaps the most obvious is the relative point values of individual ships. For example, in Federation Commander, the Romulan War Eagle is worth 103 points, while the Federation NCA is worth 150. However, in Romulan Armada, the War Eagle is worth 225 and the NCA is worth 302. This is due to the fact that, because they are different games with different points of emphasis, the various weapons and systems have more of an impact on winning and losing in Starmada than in FC or SFB. Nevertheless, the overall ratio of point values in Federation Commander to those in Starmada is fairly consistent: most ships have a Starmada point value between 200% and 250% of their FC value.
|By David Bostwick (Zarquon) on Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 10:40 pm: Edit|
Has any consideration been given to removing the extra damage associated with critical hits? They are bad enough as is and this would help ships last a bit longer.
|By John Williams (Johndw) on Friday, March 14, 2014 - 06:27 am: Edit|
Hows progress coming along? Been a few weeks without much discussion goin on.
|By Lee Storey (Storeylf) on Friday, March 14, 2014 - 03:52 pm: Edit|
My playing partner was meant to be away for a couple of weeks visiting family back end of Feb, but ended up in hospital with 3rd degree burns around one ankle instead and awaiting a skin graft, but now has MRSA on top of that. So not much going on in terms of ACTA over here, nor is there likely to be before play testing ends I suspect. I haven't heard from anyone else either.
|By Andrew J Koch (Droid) on Friday, March 14, 2014 - 04:03 pm: Edit|
Wow Lee I hope it works out for him. Burns aside MRSA is no joke
|By John Williams (Johndw) on Friday, March 14, 2014 - 05:59 pm: Edit|
Oh man! I hope your friend makes it.
|By Andrew E Schwenzer (Andrew_Cluetain) on Sunday, March 16, 2014 - 04:51 pm: Edit|
Wish your friend best of luck Lee!
In being a unofficial play tester I found something odd in V1.0 of ACAT SF. I have been converting SFB Stats to ACTA, for the book one ships so I knew I had updated Shield and hull points and the new Maneuver stat right. What I found was the Romulan Skyhawk designated (SKH) refers to the CARGO version. My question is, since I have no Fed Commander products, is this right? Or, as I think is it the wrong Designation? I'm assuming at the moment that the "Base" Skyhawk is the right one, please correct me if I'm wrong.
|By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Sunday, March 16, 2014 - 06:54 pm: Edit|
The SKH in ACTASF is the 'base' Skyhawk
Mathhew chose to give it a three letter designation SKH for (SK)y(H)awk.
That's probably something I should looking to revising.
|By Dan Wideman (Kyrolon) on Sunday, March 16, 2014 - 07:01 pm: Edit|
Sorry to hear about your friend, Lee. We've been getting some playtest time in. We've also started a campaign which should generate more games. We are trying to play weekly for the near future.
Tony has my notes, and when he gets a chance to review them and finishes up a cleaned up v1.4 (?) hopefully we can generate some more discussion.
The things I can tell you are that to us the revisions have more SFB feel while staying fairly simple. We like them a lot. I'm really looking forward to the finished product.
|By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Sunday, March 16, 2014 - 07:23 pm: Edit|
If it helps, you can see many of the low-toner versions of the relevant FC Ship Cards in the Commander's Circle. (Here's the low-toner SkyHawk Ship Card.)
Each Ship Card comes in two scales, but the Squadron Scale side most closely matches what you see on an SFB SSD. But there are a few differences here and there. (For example, if you are calculating Klingon damage scores, bear in mind that FC Klingon Ship Cards have no security station boxes.)
|By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Monday, March 17, 2014 - 12:19 pm: Edit|
I thought the three-letter designation (at least in SFB/FC) was SHK? (don't have access to my books, at the moment)
|By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Monday, March 17, 2014 - 12:38 pm: Edit|
SHK is the S-era (bolted) Hawk in SFB Module Y1.
|By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Monday, March 17, 2014 - 07:46 pm: Edit|
The Skyhawk base is 'SK' with the third letter being the module being carried, normally it's an 'A' (basic) making it an 'SKA' in SFB (not sure on FC).
|By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 - 06:07 pm: Edit|
It's SK on the low-toner FC ship card I brought up, so that is indeed probably it.
|By Dean Saffran (Gunner41c) on Monday, June 23, 2014 - 11:40 pm: Edit|
Just a suggestion, when it comes to Artemis systems. I thought maybe you could try any ships before 175 have limited version and can only use this escort ability on 1 ship at a time. After 175 the escort rule would be applied as per normal.
|By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - 02:24 pm: Edit|
|By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - 02:33 pm: Edit|
Artemis?? escort- must mean Aegis.
|By Tony L. Thomas (Scoutdad) on Tuesday, June 24, 2014 - 08:45 pm: Edit|
The ACTASF1.2 book has a rule for escorts...
and the play testers have tossed around ideas for 'full aegis' ships, too. If (and when) it comes time to add Full Aegis escorts 9as opposed to just escorts), the rule will only need a bit of testing to achieve balance.
And ACTASF (much like Federation Commander) doesn't use year in service. Everything is available. So pre-175 / post-175 is a meaningless description.
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation