New Saggi!

[lastbesthope]

One thing I notice about the Saggi is some contradictory fluff, it states something along the lines of development allowing misisle racks to be placed along a hull along with AF Particle Beams.....

...... which have now been removed from the Saggi

LBH

 

[Davesaint]

If by fine you mean 'oh my good god HOW MANY AD of beams did you say youre about fire at me?!?!?!' then yes, it is a fine ship indeed :lol:

Personally, I was always happy with the Avioki. 8AD AP Beam DD is pretty damn good, especially when you can CaF! it. A couple of them made some nasty dents in the Armageddon Shadows...

EDIT: I have been using the Tournament Avioki since it apperared.

Wulf

Do you use the old Tournament Avioki when you playtest?


Dave

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Do you use the old Tournament Avioki when you playtest?

I did when I playtested the Tournament list. It wasn't one of the Armageddon ships (but was considered for inclusion in it's Tourney list form), so I can't actually remember if it was used for that. And it's been replaced for second edition...

Wulf

 

[Ripple]

I still cannot believe we are already in playtest for 2nd ed when we do not know the impact of Arm. Did we not learn from the Sagi example to let the players maul the new stuff for a bit before we move on to the new stuff?

Thinking about the new squadron rule here which has turned games with some races into I fire, you fire what is left BFG style games.

Ripple

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I still cannot believe we are already in playtest for 2nd ed

"we"?

Wulf

 

[Target]

The new Sag is almost exactly the way we have been playin it for months by making it hull 4, but the loss of it's turreted anti fighter weapon is good to. Still going to be deadly though in groups of 10, 60 missles 1 turn, 20 the next. Agree with ripple about the playtest thing we haven't had a chance to break these rules and ships yet :lol:

 

[emperorpenguin]

One thing I notice about the Saggi is some contradictory fluff, it states something along the lines of development allowing misisle racks to be placed along a hull along with AF Particle Beams.....

...... which have now been removed from the Saggi

LBH

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that!

I can't see how the fighter defences were overpowered, I think this is an error and before LBH jumps in and asks where my proof is I think I know exactly how it happened......

Off to PM Matt......

 

[emperorpenguin]

I still cannot believe we are already in playtest for 2nd ed when we do not know the impact of Arm. Did we not learn from the Sagi example to let the players maul the new stuff for a bit before we move on to the new stuff?

Ripple

Playtesting has only started, it'll run for many months yet so don't worry

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I can't see how the fighter defences were overpowered, I think this is an error and before LBH jumps in and asks where my proof is I think I know exactly how it happened......

Ahem... yes... :wink:


Wulf

 

[Davesaint]

Leave it off. It has the option of taking Anti-fighter missles after all.



Dave

 

[emperorpenguin]

Leave it off. It has the option of taking Anti-fighter missles after all.



Dave

I'd only take anti-fighter missiles to protect another ship. Otherwise you're trading all that offensive potential just for self defence?

 

[Triggy]

Well I've run the rule over the new Sagittarius so to speak and (anti-fighter beam intact, according to EP) it comes out as a very good solution to the problem. Remove the particle beam and it's worse but not too much so...as a support ship it won't be losing any sleep but with many of them they'd suffer

 

[Locutus9956]

Personally I LIKE the lack of anti fighter beam, I dont care what the fluff text states but the ship still has formidable firepower for a skirmish vessel. Making it extremely vulnerable with hull 4 and no fighter defences balances this nicely

 

[Davesaint]

Leave it off. It has the option of taking Anti-fighter missles after all.



Dave

I'd only take anti-fighter missiles to protect another ship. Otherwise you're trading all that offensive potential just for self defence?

The Anti-Fighter missile is all good against ANY target that has dodge.


Dave

 

[prelude_to_war]

hmm...like WHITESTARS?!?

 

[Iain McGhee]

I'd hope it's not an error leaving off the Particle Beams (bit much to put out a correction to a correction ). Assuming it's not, I can see why they were removed as the Sagittarius is purely a long-range bombardment vessel that isn't designed to get up close and personal with enemy cruisers. It was built to fight the Dilgar after all. Besides, with the number of Starfuries the EA usually field fighter cover shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Black Omega]

I'd hope it's not an error leaving off the Particle Beams (bit much to put out a correction to a correction ). Assuming it's not, I can see why they were removed as the Sagittarius is purely a long-range bombardment vessel that isn't designed to get up close and personal with enemy cruisers. It was built to fight the Dilgar after all. Besides, with the number of Starfuries the EA usually field fighter cover shouldn't be a problem.

I wouldn't fancy your chances going up against anything other than fighters with a 5" weak beam! I don't think putting the beam back on the sagg would make too big a change in terms of the way its used tactically, lets face it, if the beam is re-instated you aren't going to suddenly start going to go toe to toe with enemy capital ships with your saggis.
Similarly from an opponents point of view the saggi is a high enough priority target that you should be trying to knock it out at long range with capital ships most of the time rather than relying on fighters to take it down.

Still you make a very good point about the EA having enough fighters on hand to provide fighter cover for it.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

It was built to fight the Dilgar after all. Besides, with the number of Starfuries the EA usually field fighter cover shouldn't be a problem.

But the Dilgar field almost as many Thorun, and they've got the Speed (and the Afterburners) to reach the Saggis...

Wulf

 

[Black Omega]

Just off the top of my head, but what about an alternative solution which is that the sagg comes with 1-2 flights of complementary starfuries which must be deployed in close escort at the beginning of the game?

*now i'm ducking for cover!*

 

[Burger]

The Sag is changed, its not gonna be changed again! I can't imagine any games company, even Mongoose, admitting a typo like this in such a hotly awaited ship change. Even if it was accidentally missed off, they're gonna say "Oh yeah, we removed that deliberately and its not coming back".