Thanks - two of the three titles for the Republic Venator give it a defensive boost, so you may find Engineering 3 really isn't that bad

Here are the updated versions (the whole Venator page on Shipyards is out of date now):

So I like the new Star destroyer version though I still can't figure out the purpose of the command cruiser other then 2 commander slots and begin slightly cheaper.

I can't see why you would take it over the star destroyer version. When at least generally speaking the star destroyer version is just as effective carrier with expanded hanger and has significantly more fire power in each arc.

Honestly I would drop the star destroyers hanger bay to 3 and allow it to keep its offensive slot, and allow the Command cruiser to have a clear advantage in the carrier department.

I still can't figure out the purpose of the command cruiser other then 2 commander slots and begin slightly cheaper.

I can't see why you would take it over the star destroyer version.

Well I'd say those are both pretty good reasons

Plus the defensive slot and Squadron 5. And better AS. And more red dice in the broadsides.

Honestly, I don't know what to tell you. Play it, compare both versions, and if that doesn't change your mind then let me know what went wrong and I'll try to fix it

The difference between the two Star Destroyers comes down to play style. If you want a gunline, and stand-off (long) range engagement, the Command Destroyer is the superior option. Its officer slots are quite useful, as is its defensive retrofit. In a 400pt fleet, a full fighter complement fleet will benefit much more from a pair of Command Destroyers, enough squadron between them for, for example, a max fleet of 8 ARC-170s and a pair of V-wing units (134 pts exactly), and has additional anti-squadron capability should the furball erupt near the ship. By contrast, the Star Destroyer is significantly more lethal in close quarters combat, packs greater firepower forward for a closing charge, and is optimized to take best advantage of its greater direct fire through upgrades such as Turbolasers and Weapons Teams. Could with Expanded Hangar Bays a Star Destroyer perform the same fighter-lead role as the Command model? Sure, as long as the 13 pts and lack of Defensive Retrofit are worth it to you. Speaking for myself, I do actually prefer the more heavily armed version, but I don't run truly fighter heavy lists. If you do, take the Command variant every time and use those reds to hold the range open.

By the way, some of the new objective cards I'm writing are intended to favor squadron-heavy builds (which for the most part get shafted by the standard objective cards). This could well shake up the current dynamics. They're just text for now as I didn't have time to create a card template for those yet, but let me know if you're interested in trying them out

So much stuff to do! At the moment, I'm re-editing the Jedi squadrons with the proper Grit/Rogue icons, and converting them for professional printing. This last part is quite labor intensive, and needs to happen to virtually all cards made thus far (only the CIS templates were bleed-compliant from the start), so it's going to take a while. I won't do them all in one go, though - instead, whenever a card is up for revision, I'll also convert it. Next up are all ships with Contain tokens, since they were using a crude makeshift icon until err404 updated his massively useful Armada font .

In terms of "real" work (new cards), I still plan to do the Providence next. Soon. It's definitely going to be Large-based, and come in both carrier and line versions much like the Venator. But aside from that I did not give it much thought yet. GP posted some suggestions which I can certainly use as a starting point, but we have a lot more context now than when those were originally written, so any further ideas are welcome. Mel also mentioned that he intended to make the 2000m version (only), and the final stats may well depend on his final decision.

I just noticed we overtook the monster SSD thread a couple of pages ago...

I resized the Gilead/Providence class to 110% when I uploaded it on my Shapeways account, not sure how it will look, but, to me it seems right, I always pictured the Providence as slightly longer. https://www.shapeways.com/product/F5UDL6FSJ/

Somehow the Canon caries less weight, than what I imagined it to be.

Popping in to say that I love the work done in here, been considering trying to sneak in getting a Venator or two as soon as I have some more spare cash.

That said, I think the Venator's armament is getting a bit out of hand. Compared to an Imperial II it has the same amount of dice in the front zones, granted, with more of a focus on the sides and shorter range due to black dice, but I think it still has a point in pointing out. The Imperial is supposed to be covered in turbo laser batteries and supplemented with a number of turrets, while the Venator had a much smaller amount and primarily in side facing turrets.

Bumping my post as it took 2 days to get through approval.

Yes, the ISD has more guns, the Venator had larger main guns, but had a smaller total numder of guns. I like where it is at at the moment, but I still need to do some playtesting as soon as I can get my hands on some large bases.

Popping in to say that I love the work done in here, been considering trying to sneak in getting a Venator or two as soon as I have some more spare cash.

That said, I think the Venator's armament is getting a bit out of hand. Compared to an Imperial II it has the same amount of dice in the front zones, granted, with more of a focus on the sides and shorter range due to black dice, but I think it still has a point in pointing out. The Imperial is supposed to be covered in turbo laser batteries and supplemented with a number of turrets, while the Venator had a much smaller amount and primarily in side facing turrets.

Bumping my post as it took 2 days to get through approval.

Thanks for the feedback. I'd suggest comparing the Venator with the MC80 rather than the ISD, as it's much closer in terms of stats. But I understand your problem is with how faithful the ship is (or isn't) to the lore, rather than game balance? I have to say I'm far more concerned with the latter - and, as mentioned before, the Republic/CIS ships don't necessarily use the same stat scale as the Imperial/Rebel ones (the Empire will get some Venator cards, but they will be weaker) so direct comparisons are not entirely appropriate. Either way there's just not much room between a VSD and an ISD, which is where this ship belongs.

I don't expect to make any further changes, certainly not until after there's been some playtesting, but you're welcome to suggest stats if you feel the current ones are not adequate.

Yes, it is more of a lore related issue, and I know that it should (in certain terms of capability) be more compared to the MC 80 (which it is closer in size to), but I'm also of the opinion that it can still be balanced to an ISD without being its equal, partly by being cheaper, excelling at another role (in the Venator's role, likely Carrier) or other stuff, things that I have so far seen a lot of in your work.

It's not so much a condemnation of the stats, just an opinion that maybe it shouldn't be so firepower focused.

I resized the Gilead/Providence class to 110% when I uploaded it on my Shapeways account, not sure how it will look, but, to me it seems right, I always pictured the Providence as slightly longer. https://www.shapeways.com/product/F5UDL6FSJ/

Somehow the Canon caries less weight, than what I imagined it to be.

I just tried that link. It didn't work. Do you have a Shapeways shop?

Ok, I think I missed a checkbox for that.

Try this link.

http://shpws.me/KBuI

Ok, I think I missed a checkbox for that.

Try this link.

http://shpws.me/KBuI

Nice work! If you ever get in the 1/7000 starship biz, be sure you let us know.

Ok, I think I missed a checkbox for that.

Try this link. http://shpws.me/KBuI

Nice work! If you ever get in the 1/7000 starship biz, be sure you let us know.

Thanks, but the work wasn't mine. Credit where credit is due.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/175690-das-custom-cards/?p=1862082

Zenzi, did all the leg work on these, all I did was play with the scale a little bit. I'm using the four 3d images he provided as an opportunity to learn the processes.

This is the future of miniatures, and I love my minis!

ERROR

EDIT

?

My son requested a title or officer card that allows a ship to use one command token per round as if it were a command dial. I suggest a title card.

I would suggest an alternative. Reveal a command dial and discard a command token to change the dial to the matching command.

I second Wes. Allowing a ship, any ship, to use two full command dial effects per turn could be devastating and massively tilt balance in that ship's favor and away from anything else. Did he have a particular ship in mind?

That is one of the reasons why I suggested a title card. It would also need to be for a small ship, otherwise, you are correct, the ship would be ridiculously over powered. It would need to be in the 10-15 point range even then.

The other options I was thinking of were either to allow one single type of token to act as a dial, or to allow the title ship to collect a token even if it spends its command dial.

Come to think of it one of these would be great as the Wild Karrad title card for the Action IV transport.

Just a thought.

Manipulating command dials is, for the most part, officer territory (though I suppose there's no reason a title card can't do it too). Before we get down to brass tacks, let's look at the most relevant existing examples:

CF/N/R/S officers (6): Change your dial to CF/N/R/S.

Weapons/Defensive Liaison (4): Discard any token to change your dial to (CF or S) / (N or R) respectively.

Support Officer (4): Once per game, discard all your command dials.

Raymus (7): Collect a matching token along with your dial.

Veteran Captain (3): Once per game, gain any token.

Wulff Yularen (7): After you spend a token, recover it.

Leia Organa (3): Copy your dial to another ship.

Tantive IV (3): Send your dial to another ship.

And, for the sake of completeness, also the custom ones:

General Kalani (7): When you gain a token, gain another (different) one.

Commander Wolffe (6): Swap dials with another ship.

Betrayer Arquitens title (9): When a nearby enemy reveals a dial, a nearby friendly ship gains a matching token.

Kraken CR92 title (5): Gain a squadron token per turn.

Reaper Nebulon-B title (4): After resolving a maneuver command, gain any command token.

Harpy Nebulon-B2 title (3): After receiving a faceup damage card, gain a repair token.

Katana Dreadnaught title (12): When you gain a command token, all other friendly ships gain a matching token.

Peregrine Dreadnaught title (15): At the start of the third round, each friendly ship gains a full set of tokens.

Wes Janson's proposed ability is comparable to the Liaisons, and should probably cost about the same, i.e. 4-5 points.

I concur with Wes and Giled that allowing two dial effects per turn is too strong for an officer... unless it's a once per game ability:

After you reveal a command dial, you may discard this card to reveal another command dial.

Something like that would not only give you a one-time boost, but would also accelerate your command stack by bringing the third dial to the fore and making you add two dials during the next command phase, a bit like a Support Officer. Definitely nice, but as a one-shot upgrade I wouldn't cost it at more than 5-7 points.

For a small ship, converting a token to a dial really isn't a very big deal. 1 extra engineering point, 1 extra squadron (or none!), an extra click of yaw, or an extra attack die instead of a reroll.

Let's break that down:

-Engineering Team gives you +1 point from a token or from a dial for 5 points. Here we're only using part of the ability, so I'd price it at 3.

-Expanded Hangar gives you 1 extra squadron activation, also for 5 points. On a squadron-1 ship, though, it's worth exactly 0.

-Nav Team gives you yaw from maneuver tokens for 4 points. And as far as I can tell it's overpriced and underwhelming compared to Engine Techs, especially on small ships which are already fairly maneuverable. Let's say it's worth 3 here.

-An extra die is better than a reroll, but only if you hit with everything. Much of the time (especially with red dice) it will change nothing. Probably worth 4 points or so.

So, the proposed ability would cost 10 if you could resolve multiple tokens per turn... which, on a command-1 ship, you can't. There's also the issue of token availability - without a way of gaining them (on top of your regular command, which you'll be spending rather than banking), you're not really likely to use this title very often. The fact that you need to combo multiple cards (Raymus, Tarkin, Betrayer, Katana...) to get any mileage out of this, instead of being self-sufficient, further cuts down its value. So if we put this on, say, a Consular class, I don't think I'll be pricing it higher than 6 or 7.

Cool!

As soon as large bases arive, I can start playtesting Venators.

Up this week, more squadron skirmishes & a battle including an Intradictor, as well as at least one or two other custom ships. For that one I will be acting as impartial observer/rules lawyer. My sons will be facing off.

Tri-droid vs. Is next. The hyena bombers will need to wait until an evening when I have time to run a little 100-150 pt CIS vs GAR battle. Basically a single Munificent and its squadrons vs. a single Acclamator, and its squadrons.

I'll see what time permits.

Diablo,

I was looking at the Venator and Munificent cards. What do you think of rebel refit versions? After reading the tread on the Boneyard scenario someone else posted we tossed the idea of an Imperial surplus yard of old ships. In the scenario they might be Clone Wars vintage with Clone Wars stats, but in a campaign, they would get refits and upgrades.

Do you think older ships like that should stay somewhat inferior for flavor purposes? Just curious on your thoughts.