The Venator should be pretty flimsy, imo. Those things get shot out of the sky with hardly any effort on every episode of Clone Wars.

Also, the Arquitens is a bit more legit now that it's in Rebels. At least as much as the gozanti is anyways. I like both of those ships a lot more than the Venator.

I would bring Squad value to 4. Other than that seems okay.

Based on its carry capacity it carries similar amount to the ISD, with a squadron value of 5 revealed. Plus the Venator has a dedicated fighter command tower. Why go down to 4?

Based on its carry capacity it carries similar amount to the ISD, with a squadron value of 5 revealed. Plus the Venator has a dedicated fighter command tower. Why go down to 4?

First off that ISD may change and second is that 4 fighters is generally what carriers can hold most of the time

Its all good, playtests are the biggest tellers of the tale. After some games under the belt, I will revisit the ship. First I have to paint her though.

OK, I am still trying to push my way through learning Photoshop Elements 13. To that end, I was wondering if you could post a tutorial or point me to one, so I could use those templates to create custom cards. My big desire is to create custom ace squadron cards that match my RPG players squadrons.

Either way, thanks for all the cool cards!

OK, I am still trying to push my way through learning Photoshop Elements 13. To that end, I was wondering if you could post a tutorial or point me to one, so I could use those templates to create custom cards. My big desire is to create custom ace squadron cards that match my RPG players squadrons.

Either way, thanks for all the cool cards!

I'm afraid it's rather difficult to condense all the relevant features of Photoshop in a single tutorial - and I'm probably not the right person to do it anyway. But a good understanding of the anatomy of a template is absolutely essential, so I suggest you check out at least these two online tutorials:

http://www.photoshopessentials.com/basics/layers/layers-intro/

http://www.photoshopessentials.com/basics/layers/layers-panel/

These should get you most of the way there. Then if you still need answers to specific questions, I'll be happy to answer them to the best of my abilities

What might also help you is to download some .psd files for ships or squadrons, so you can see what we've done. It's a little easier to adapt one of those into your own card than starting from a blank template anyway. PM me your email address and I'll give you a download link

My take on the Venator was more or less a battle carrier then a dedicated heavy cruiser. Although it is listed as having more weapons, most are smaller standard lasers instead of turbo lasers. So my take was to keep its fighter capability high, while reducing its long range weapons and capabilities. I tried to keep it similar to the Victory in hull and shields as it is a bigger ship, but older. The idea behind the forward weapons being no better then the side is due to the steep angle the hull is on, as well as the heavy turbo lasers not being able to shoot over one another directly forward.

Not trying to Hijack your post Diablo, may give you a place to start.

Shall be playtesting this!

My take on the Venator was more or less a battle carrier then a dedicated heavy cruiser. Although it is listed as having more weapons, most are smaller standard lasers instead of turbo lasers. So my take was to keep its fighter capability high, while reducing its long range weapons and capabilities. I tried to keep it similar to the Victory in hull and shields as it is a bigger ship, but older. The idea behind the forward weapons being no better then the side is due to the steep angle the hull is on, as well as the heavy turbo lasers not being able to shoot over one another directly forward.

Not trying to Hijack your post Diablo, may give you a place to start.

I think on this point level the venator would outperform the VSD in almost any given scenario. The defense retrofit allows for the advanced projector upgrade which is so much stronger on a ship with two redirect tokens than it is on an AF, where a single accuracy result renders it useless. Anti squadron of 2 is huge on an all-purpose ship, especially since you can only find it on GSD-IIs at the moment, and their role is much more narrowed. I also dont think the reduced front fire power is enough as a trade-off for the mentioned advantages, and a squadron value of 5. In short, the venator presents a very durable plattform (arguably more durable than the VSD if advanced projectors are picked..), is less dependent on positioning and maneouvering as the side arcs do pretty well, draws a nice AA zone around it and allows to throw a max of 6 squadrons at anything.

Hesekiel, are you referring to the ships point cost or the current 300pt meta? The only change I have made was to remove the Ordnance upgrade slot, as I did not feel 4 launchers was enough to give it to the ship. It did maintain the black dice however. My only other thought was to reduce one of the anti-squadron dice to black or even both, reducing the double dice range. From a point value perspective it is calculated based on the current ships in the game. It is not exact. Being a custom ship, everything is open to debate.

In regards to the advanced deflectors, I have yet to fight a Rebel player who does not use X-17s to simply nullify my redirects anyway. As for anti-squadron defense, the Venator has 72 point defense lasers. However, the Victory has none and still manages 1 blue dice.

I did not post the ships base top here, but it is intended to be more a broadside cruiser. As you can see below, its large side arcs expose a weaker shield more easily, and it will have a harder time bringing multiple arcs to bare due to its poor maneuvering capability.

Thanks for the reply Wes, the thoughts behind the concept seem much clearer now. Let me also say I appreciate the efforts of you and others to bring us new ships and more content. In my opinion, the Venator still outperforms the VSD in many if not most of the roles you currently see the victory in. Commandship? Check, with a survivability that is arguably en par or greater than the VSDs. Carrier? Check, greater squadron value, better AA to directly interfere in dogfights. You do have a point regarding the use of Xi7s, but that is a thing a VSD suffers from as well. Anyway, will need more playtesting before commenting on the venator any further.

No problem, I am doing this for the fun in it. Play games and more games, it is going to be the only way any of us can get this stuff straight in the end.

Not really speaking about your specific Venator proposal, but rather more generally, I find that fundamentally flawed designs are so much more interesting and fun to play than well-rounded ones. The VSD has abysmal mobility so can't easily bring its fearsome front arc to bear on a target - and it's vulnerable to bombers as it can neither hurt them nor outrun them. The Nebulon-B has awkward and paper-thin broadside arcs. The Gladiator needs to close to suicidal range, while the CR90 needs to stay far and/or hidden. My instinct would be to look for a ship's weaknesses in the fluff/lore and exacerbate them. In the Venator's case, there just isn't much to go on aside from the design's age. If I get around to making a card for it, I'll probably downgrade its firepower (maybe blues and blacks only), slightly increase hull, and significantly restrict the upgrade slots. I don't know, I just don't want an obsolete ship to be good .

For comparison, if you look at a typical WW1-era battleship and its WW2 counterpart, you may find that on paper they were both armed with nine 15" guns, and may even have similar armor thicknesses. Yet their layout, fire control, propulsions etc would be so massively different that there'd simply be no contest whatsoever - in firepower, mobility or survivability.

Understand that take on it Diablo, and I can agree with it. I don't take any offense to peoples opinions, they are all valid. Half the point of posting this stuff is to see where it lands in the general population.

I choose to look at the Star Wars universe as one that is already developed, and experienced their technological revolution long in the past. Much of the tech from the Old Republic is just as good if not the same as the later era. I think the big difference is design philosophy changes vs actual technological innovations. Is the Venator obsolete, or just a symbol of a government who has no more relevance? When looked at from the Star Destroyer lineage, I think we can say it is the first in the line, and therefore doomed to be refined. Either way the Empire chooses utilitarianism over the Republic's lavish pomp.

Anyway, all theoretical in the end. As long as your all having fun.

For comparison, if you look at a typical WW1-era battleship and its WW2 counterpart, you may find that on paper they were both armed with nine 15" guns, and may even have similar armor thicknesses. Yet their layout, fire control, propulsions etc would be so massively different that there'd simply be no contest whatsoever - in firepower, mobility or survivability.

This is true. Yet old world war 1 ships could still be used in WW2 because they were able to conduct refits to the older vessels and have them perform roles well.

For comparison, if you look at a typical WW1-era battleship and its WW2 counterpart, you may find that on paper they were both armed with nine 15" guns, and may even have similar armor thicknesses. Yet their layout, fire control, propulsions etc would be so massively different that there'd simply be no contest whatsoever - in firepower, mobility or survivability.

This is true. Yet old world war 1 ships could still be used in WW2 because they were able to conduct refits to the older vessels and have them perform roles well.

That's true too, but if you look at WWII operations, WWI vintage battleships were generally not used in frontline combat. The only exception were the Japanese and the Soviets who didn't have many (or in the case of the Soviets, any) new battleships. The few times WWI vintage ships faced off with WWII designs (Hood vs. Bismarck for example) thing went spectacularly bad for the older ship.

For the vast majority of cases, the Allies used thier older battleships for things such as patrols, convoy escort, and shore bombardment. This was because newer designs were simply much better. Diablo is exactly correct in his statement. Battleship design falls into 3 major categories since 1875. The predreadnoughts, dreadnoughts and fast battleships. Without getting into a lot of deep technical analysis, when Diablo pointed out that you might have similarities on paper he's right. You would not want to be on a predread facing the Yamato even though both might have 18 inch guns and armor over a foot thick. Diablo's assessment and potential design philosophy is very sound when it comes Venator versus newer star destroyers.

Applied to the Star Wars universe, Venators should show serious deficits compared to newer star destroyers. Wear and tear alone would see ships structurally weaker with possibly worn out guns and systems. One thing that someone designing the ship card could consider is the average age of the Venator and its service life. This could very drastically change its numbers, as opposed to a brand new Venator with exactly the same technology.

For that reason, I might consider a card for a "new" Venator and a "used" Venator.

For comparison, if you look at a typical WW1-era battleship and its WW2 counterpart, you may find that on paper they were both armed with nine 15" guns, and may even have similar armor thicknesses. Yet their layout, fire control, propulsions etc would be so massively different that there'd simply be no contest whatsoever - in firepower, mobility or survivability.

This is true. Yet old world war 1 ships could still be used in WW2 because they were able to conduct refits to the older vessels and have them perform roles well.

For that reason, I might consider a card for a "new" Venator and a "used" Venator.

A Refitted version and Old version could work.

I must have been unclear. I'm not suggesting a refit version as the better ship. I'm suggesting a new ship, or new old stock in other words as the superior warship. With a refit, you still have the problem of ware and tear to structural strongpoints, metal fatigue, and parts that can not be economically replaced so are left untouched despite new equipment going into the hull.

To clarify, I'm suggesting a veteran ship, built during the Clone Wars, refitted, upgraded, etc, that is still in service. The other is a "brand new" Venator, built at the same time, but going directly into storage at a reserve depot. The veteran ship would be the inferior due to age and use despite refits, while the new old stock would be the better ship. Both would still be inferior to new designs.

That kind of thing has happened in real life. Look up the Red Lead Fleet and it may help clarify what I'm trying to get across. I know it all sounds a little convoluted, but besides the fun of designing a ship, I'm having a little fun designing a back story as to why it would still be around. At least why it will be around in my gaming group.

-stride to center of room and dust off soap box-

-step up onto soap box, assume scholarly tone and demeanor.-

Established EU cannon wise, Victory I SDs were Clone wars era ships. While the Prequels established the Venator as the main capital ship at least late in the clone wars, the age of the Victory I class has never been retconned. In short the Victory I SD and the Venator SD are contemporaries. Just as the Victory II, Nebulon B and the Imperial SD are contemporaries. Just as the Imperial II SD and the SSD are contemporaries. By the Battle of Yavin Victory SDs were not being produced in any great numbers, ISDs were taking over as the main line ship of the Empire.

-smile sheepishly, get down off soap box-

Lol, good speech cynan. I totally forgot that they existed within the same time frame. Another good point that vouches for the similar capability.

Thalomen, could we not assume then that the Venator class in later Imperial service are of mothball stock, put into service when the Rebellion heated up? That would make sense. I would be tempted to make a variation for the Rebellion that represents the refit old version. Just for a second assuming the card above represents a new/old stock, what sort of mods or capabilities would you suggest a well used model look like? Give me a direction and I will hit up a card.

Lots of valid points for the ship. I think the most important purpose of the whole exercise is to get some awesome models on the table.

I choose to look at the Star Wars universe as one that is already developed, and experienced their technological revolution long in the past. Much of the tech from the Old Republic is just as good if not the same as the later era. I think the big difference is design philosophy changes vs actual technological innovations. Is the Venator obsolete, or just a symbol of a government who has no more relevance?

That's a very valid point. As is Cynan's mention that the VSD is only very slightly more modern than the Venator. The truth is, the EU is extremely muddled and full of contradictions, inconsistencies and flagrant retcons. So a number of divergent interpretations are certainly possible and justified.

You've convinced me to also make two variants, possibly something like "Venator-class Republic Destroyer" (Rebel) and "Venator-class Imperial Refit" (Empire).

We also have to remember both ships have a different purpose. One was a ship of the line, the other is a planetary assault/bombardment vessel which required a space combat refit to perform to the Imperial Navy's expectations (Vic-II). You may be able to assume that as a result of the Venators prominent role in fleet combat during the Clone Wars, fewer ships survived the fighting intact. This would lead to the less prominent Victory class in the position to assume its new role as the Empires primary ship of the line post upgrade.

All this is speculation of course with no bounds based in reality. Fictitious ideas for a fictitious subject lol.

Wes,

I totally agree. In fact, you seem to be reading my mail as to who gets which version of the Venator.

I would make one change to the new old stock (NOS) Venator. That would be to minimize the upgrades.

For the refit version perhaps deducting 2 hull points, the black die from the forward arc and 1 red die from port and starboard. That would show the wear and tear and removing original equipment ro make room for upgrades. The refit should also have more upgrades than the NOS. Removing 1 engineering and 1 squadron might also be a good way to show reduced capabilities.

One other thought. Maybe a named ship upgrade might be interesting. HMS Warspite, a WWI vintage battleship in WWII makes for a nice inspiration. Even though she was taken into drydock for it, the steering gear would jam from time to time and she would steam in a circle. Perhaps one of the Refit Venators could have something like that, but that also gains a benifit at the same time. Maybe something like this:

*Warspite

If hit by a critical, instead of taking a damage card, roll a red die. If another critical is rolled, the ship must turn one click on the movement tool, in the same direction, for the next two movements.

You get a ship immune to criticals, but that may end up running in circles for a while.

So, a first approximation:

No turning at all at speed 3? And the ordnance for the first one seems out there. You only have ONE black dice.