About A Call to Arms

Post by **Steve Cole** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:35 pm

Silent Bob: Joel could not remember how to upload an avatar, and sent it to someone else to see if they can upload it. When it is available, you'll have to go select it.

Post by **Steve Cole** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:02 pm

Silent Bob: Email me and I'll email you the avatar. Nobody can figure out how to upload it to the gallery but everybody can figure out how to upload it for your own use.

Post by **Steve Cole** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:07 pm

Apparently, all i have accomplished is to screw up my own avatar. The system lets me pick one but then ignores the one I picked.

Scharwenka · Post by **Scharwenka** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:38 am

I would love to playtest of sorts for ACTA:SF, but I think I might be the only one in my area that seems to know what ACTA is. (Aside from the local gamestore owners). Although I have not gotten into Noble Armada.

My first thought would be to try to have independent shielding if not set in 6 sections, then at least 4 at the 45 degree intervals. That should be easy enough to determine with line of sight. Should be able to keep the burnthrough too. Once shields are down though, would hits be automatic or would you have to compare hull ratings like in ACTA? In the Starfleet universe it seems most ships are made equally hull wise.

I think the free movement will be nice too. Never tried it with FedCom though. I've had many a game were if you don't quite make a 45 degree turn your target can be in arch, but you aren't in his.

As for movement, although I liked the minimum move in ACTA, the warp field seems to give pretty precise control of a ship and being able to set speeds differently can be a big advantage.

Any thoughts on how energy will be used?

Thats all the random thoughts I have for now.

lincolnlog · Post by **lincolnlog** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:17 am

Been reading this forum since the announcement, but this is my first post. This is exiting news! I play Mongoose: Victory at Sea, which is also based on the core ACTA rules (modified for WWII wet naval engagements).

I have been a Starfleet Battles player since the very early 80's. I had many of the original plastic Federation Ship Mini's (which I prefer over the metal).

Interestingly, the first version of SFB I pruchased in 1981 was not meant to be played on a hex grid and came with turn templates that had to be cut out and used on the open table top (can't remember but the miniature rules may have been a module). Anyone other than me remember this?

Then they came out with the large hex maps which negated the need for the templates.

silent bob · Post by **silent bob** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:52 am

shields will be one score as an all round bubble basically.

energy will be handled via special actions, so if you do something like full power to engines then you will be able to do less shooting or turning etc

Scharwenka · Post by **Scharwenka** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:44 pm

silent bob wrote:shields will be one score as an all round bubble basically.

energy will be handled via special actions, so if you do something like full power to engines then you will be able to do less shooting or turning etc

Okay, I get the special actions. There should definately be a trade off. But for the shields, how are things like those nasty hellbores going to work?

Nerroth · Post by **Nerroth** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:50 pm

Would ships with both shields and armour (like the Fed Old CL) have both Shield and Armour* traits?

*The recently-uploaded preview pdf for the Vuldrok fleet in ACtA:NA includes rules for ship-mounted armour.

silent bob · Post by **silent bob** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 2:53 pm

we are looking into armour.
hellbores are not in the initial release but its something that will have to be looked at when introducing them. my thought in ACTA rules is to make them cause double damage against shields as a possibility but will look at it closer to the time and see what matt suggests as well.

Scharwenka · Post by **Scharwenka** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:26 pm

Sounds good. If you ever need any outside testers I'd be glad to help. Definately when this is released I'll have to re-join the Mongoose Infantry and promote the heck out of this game at my game store!

Post by **Steve Cole** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:34 pm

Carry on!

mjwest · Post by **mjwest** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:56 pm

silent bob wrote:hellbores are not in the initial release but its something that will have to be looked at when introducing them. my thought in ACTA rules is to make them cause double damage against shields as a possibility but will look at it closer to the time and see what matt suggests as well.

For hellbores, simply take the full damage and apply it to the mono-shield. Hellbores do very nice damage totals, and this is the logical simplification. (Heck, that is how it is handled in SFB/FC if the target has a mono-shield or no shields.)

silent bob · Post by **silent bob** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:04 pm

just thinking of things to make them different instead of just being another weapon that hits shields.

and talking of testing, anyone on here live in elgin, scotland or nearby? as I am moving up there soon so need a new gaming group and therefore testing group.

Scharwenka · Post by **Scharwenka** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:35 pm

More thoughts on ACTA: SF:
Has the initiative been worked out? Providing an initiative system will be used. I would think Klingons would have the highest base initiative points, followed by the Feds, then the Romulans. But I wonder if the Romulans could then gain an additional bonus if they have cloaked ships on the board each round?

terryoc · Post by **terryoc** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:08 am

I think the Romulans would be higher than the Feds. Yes, their Eagle-class ships are barges, but the Kestrels and Hawks are as maneuverable as the Klingons. (The Kestrels are converted Klingon ships, as seen in the episode The Enterprise Incident.)