Tournament Saggitarius: Raid or Skirmish?

[Triggy]

I find it interesting that the Drakh fleet book states they are balacned for fighting in boht tourney rules and campaign, I'd like to see a drakh fleeet face 5 pts of saggitarius and see how it fares in both rules sets.

To be fair, aside from minor changes only the Minbari, ISA, Shadows and Vorlons are different to their SFOS lists. EA only have interceptors changes and the Sagittarius as differences, Vree lose a bit of super manoeuvrability, and so on.

 

[animus]

To be fair, aside from minor changes only the Minbari, ISA, Shadows and Vorlons are different to their SFOS lists. EA only have interceptors changes and the Sagittarius as differences, Vree lose a bit of super manoeuvrability, and so on.

Seems like a lot to me. The Devil's in the details.

 

[Karlopopoli]

I find it interesting that the Drakh fleet book states they are balacned for fighting in boht tourney rules and campaign, I'd like to see a drakh fleeet face 5 pts of saggitarius and see how it fares in both rules sets.

To be fair, aside from minor changes only the Minbari, ISA, Shadows and Vorlons are different to their SFOS lists. EA only have interceptors changes and the Sagittarius as differences, Vree lose a bit of super manoeuvrability, and so on.

EA also get things like +2 dice on the warlock beam. the poseidon gets carrier 8, it may not seem much but the extra interceptors mean a lot when you get into knife fighting range

Narn lose the emine versatilityand so part of their punchyness.

shadows and vorlons get a lot harder to kill and in some cases a bit more firepower.

It's a simple fact that the ship sets are different and therefore i'd expect different results. i can't really see htat they would be balanced in fighting the two sets of stats

 

[prelude_to_war]

After getting pasted by the x10 Sag fleet, I'd like to see how other fleets do against it. Granted this was my second game using the Vorlons, I think I might have a chance if we had a rematch. Maybe. I'm curious to see how others do against it.

 

[Triggy]

Yeah, details make a difference but my point is that really the style stays the same and as far as the games I've played, it's very rare these "minor" changes would have actually changed the outcome of a game. That said, I actually agree with most of the changes and feel that the fleets are more balanced now than with the SFOS lists (yes, I'm a fan of balancing the lists first and building campaign rules around them rather than the other way around - personal opinion).

 

[l33tpenguin]

Yeah, details make a difference but my point is that really the style stays the same and as far as the games I've played, it's very rare these "minor" changes would have actually changed the outcome of a game. That said, I actually agree with most of the changes and feel that the fleets are more balanced now than with the SFOS lists (yes, I'm a fan of balancing the lists first and building campaign rules around them rather than the other way around - personal opinion).

it still confuses me why they didn't do this to begin with? Its a lot more work to make two seperate fleets than it would be to make rules based around a single fleet to balance campaign and tourny

 

[Tibour]

I think that it should remain in skirmish but lower the hull to 4. As others have said it is nothing more than a big support platform.


I don't understand the different fleet lists. If a game is balenced from the start what do you need a seperate tourny list for. It just causes confusion. If you don't like the lists in the rules don't play the game. IMHO

 

[markn]

The Sagittarius needs to be updated if it's going to stay at skirmish. I'd drop 1 AD off of the port and starboard arcs and either lower the hull to 4 or drop some damage and crew.

Regarding beam weapons vs Sagittarius, they are still hull 5 with a ton of hull and crew for a skirmish ship.

I really think most long range bombardment ships like that should be hull 4. Its a rear of the fleet ship and shouldnt be expected to stand upto direct fire.

This is a good point. This seems similar to the Dag'kar that the narn have. It has a hull 4. This may well be the answer. Having said that I would like to see the Dagkar moved to Hull 5. Maybe an option of lowering the dam/crew or increasing the skeleton crew could be an option too. After all, you need a lot of people to fire those missiles!!! :wink:

 

[prelude_to_war]

I don't understand the different fleet lists.

Certain fleets are stronger in a campaign setting. For example Shadows and Vorlons only need survive a game and they'll regenerate back to full strength for the next game. With all of the other races, damage is damage and fleets must expend resources to repair them.

That's a huge advantage these fleets don't get in tournament settings. Hence the tournament list which does a pretty good job of equalizing the disparity.

As for moving the Sag to hull 4, I also think this is a great idea. Somewhere it says that it's simply a testbed for testing missiles and evolved into a ship. Doesn't sound like it should be all that tough. Hull 5 - the same as the Nova and Hyperion, better than the Olympus - is a bit high I think.

 

[Burger]

But their new ships cost double RR

 

[Triggy]

I think that it should remain in skirmish but lower the hull to 4. As others have said it is nothing more than a big support platform.


I don't understand the different fleet lists. If a game is balenced from the start what do you need a seperate tourny list for. It just causes confusion. If you don't like the lists in the rules don't play the game. IMHO

It's precisely because the fleets are not balanced at the start for both campaign play and tournament play.

As for not playing the game (aside from being an unduely harsh comment) - if you've noticed almost everyone here has played around with changing ships, rules, etc. (such as this thread, the fighters threads, Narn e-mines, ad infinitum) if your point was taken then almost nobody would play. It's only through playtesting that changes are made for the future.

The tournament supplement is every bit as official as the SFoS lists, just for a different setting. Yes it's slightly confusing for a beginner but no big issue after while (although I still would prefer a single unified fleet list designed for one-off game balance and campaign rules built around that).

 

[Locutus9956]

EA also get things like +2 dice on the warlock beam. the poseidon gets carrier 8, it may not seem much but the extra interceptors mean a lot when you get into knife fighting range

Narn lose the emine versatilityand so part of their punchyness.

shadows and vorlons get a lot harder to kill and in some cases a bit more firepower.

It's a simple fact that the ship sets are different and therefore i'd expect different results. i can't really see htat they would be balanced in fighting the two sets of stats

Lets not also forget that the Warlock also gets another 5" RANGE on its beam as well. Both EA fighters also get a +1 to their dogfight scores.

I dont have a problem with these changes though as they feel 'right', is just the Sag in the EA tourney list thats a bit of a sore spot.

As for the Narns, yes they lose Emine varients but some of their other weapons are improved and some ships become even tougher (The tournament G'Quan gets another AD of Heavy lasers and SIXTY damage points (almost equal to most races WAR level ships)).

As for the shadows and Vorlons, they NEEDED a boost. I mean seriously, try playing against the SFoS versions of them (especially the Vorlons) and tell me that they didnt need upgrading. Sure in a campaign they repair for free, but simply put they die so much more easily in SFoS that thats not as big an advantage as you might think (and lets not forget they pay double for new ships too). To play them well in campaign they pretty much have to jump in do a little damage (maybe kill 1 or 2 small ships) and jump out. It may work but it just doesnt feel 'right' for the shadows and vorlons to have to fight like raiders.... The tournament list versions of them are perfectly fair (though Im not sure the shadow hunter is QUITE right, the lists are still MUCH better).

EDIT: Also EA lose missile varients and a LOT of ship varients (and many of them are rather GOOD varients (some of the Hyperion varients, especially the patrol versions, were rather nasty)

 

[lastbesthope]

EDIT: Also EA lose missile varients and a LOT of ship varients (and many of them are rather GOOD varients (some of the Hyperion varients, especially the patrol versions, were rather nasty)

There aren't any Patrol level variants of the Hyperion, a couple of Skirmish level ones though, a couple of Raid, and one Battle

LBH

 

[markn]

As for the Narns, yes they lose Emine varients but some of their other weapons are improved and some ships become even tougher (The tournament G'Quan gets another AD of Heavy lasers and SIXTY damage points (almost equal to most races WAR level ships)).

The emine variants actually are a huge equalizer for the Narns. As for the GQuan, if memory serves they get an extra AD on the beam but the range is 5" shorter. As for the 60 damage...if memory serves its only 5 more than SFOS and really makes hardly any difference. Quite often a crit takes it out of the battle before it loses its health anyways. I think the Narn tend to suffer more crits than anyone else since they can't mitigate ANY hits with interceptors/dodge, etc.

 

[Target]

You could reduce the hull by 1. We did that made them a little easier to kill but then we never actually take that many of them.
Maybe thats the real issue but you can't fix that unless you go like warhammer with core, special and rare choices.

 

[Triggy]

I have no problem with taking loads of them or otherwise. I think Dropping the missiles to 2/4/4/2 on each facing would do the trick. Then they become tough but only "great" against certain fleets.

Either that or keep the SFoS version (i.e. keep it at Raid level with main guns to the front, maybe beefed up guns on the broadsides...)

 

[Target]

sounds reasonable, could even have a reduction in hits compare a vorchan on 15 with no interceptors to 28 with interceptors. The vorchans speed can't protect it as much as interceptors especially from a sag.

 

[markn]

You could reduce the hull by 1. We did that made them a little easier to kill but then we never actually take that many of them.
Maybe thats the real issue but you can't fix that unless you go like warhammer with core, special and rare choices.

This is one thing I just don't get. Why doesn't playtesting include looking at options such as all Sags. Isn't the point of playtesting ensuring the ship isn't broken?

I don't play warhammer so I can't comment on the core/special/rare you speak of above but it seems as if the game is playtested in a friendly, fun manner. I get that the designers encourage fun in the game but lets face it ACTA is a competitive thing. It is designed to be a head to head game. That by nature means someone is trying to outdo someone else. Therefore a competitive edge is always looked for. Proper playtesting should minimize these things... Both lists seem to have their faults, all be it I think the tourney fleet is a little more solid IMHO.

 

[Nomad]

Perhaps limit its deployment?

The Sag is supposed to be a support ship, AFAIK, so having a fleet composed entirely of them is a bit like fielding an army composed of nothing but artillery.

So how about limiting Sags to no more than 1/3 of the hulls in any fleet? A similar rule could apply to Dag'Kars, Apollos and (in SFoS) command variants.

 

[markn]

Perhaps limit its deployment?

The Sag is supposed to be a support ship, AFAIK, so having a fleet composed entirely of them is a bit like fielding an army composed of nothing but artillery.

So how about limiting Sags to no more than 1/3 of the hulls in any fleet? A similar rule could apply to Dag'Kars, Apollos and (in SFoS) command variants.

Isn't that just extra unnecessary rules? Any player should be allowed to bring to bear any number of ships to any engagement. If its part of the fleet there shouldn't be a limit...