This is how I would do the Venator, at least considering what we see in the TV Show. Unlike the Star Destroyer the Venator always goes in groups (since the war is a more concentrated war instead of a war against guerrilla warfare). In the show you always see the Venator going side by side, doing a blockade.

I believe the Venator should have a long range attack in the front and a heavy short range attack on the sides. That way it would be more favorable for you to use it by having two or more side by side, protecting the sides from far away attacks and making it impossible for any ship to get between two Venators.

On the other hand, you always see a Providence alone or with frigates around it, so it should work as a singular ship.

And as another idea for the Providence. It should have something that gives it a benefit when it goes to speed 0, to represent the Emergency Booster Engines

One of the problems that I had when statting the Venator was the inconsistency between sources. For example, like you point out, it's often seen in line abreast formation, shooting its turbolasers dead ahead. But if you look at the actual ship layout, it's obvious that the turret arrangement would not allow focusing fire on a target in the front arc:

The depicted usage is inconsistent with the (daft) ship design which, to be used effectively, would require age-of-sail or pre-dreadnaught tactics, i.e. column formations or AF2-like conga lines.

I had chosen to base the card on the layout rather than the "fluff", but after running into the clash with the Providence, I'm inclined to revise this. I think you make a really good suggestion: heavy long-range firepower in the front arc, heavy short-range firepower in the broadsides. Now that would be unique. I'll play around and post something later.

It can concentrate its fire forward if it 'dips' its nose, same as the ISD actually which has the same issue with its heavy turbolaser batteries.

Right, and the wookieepedia article even mentions this. But we never actually see it happen in the movies or series, which is what I meant by depicted usage - it's something that was written much later to account for the discrepancy.

EDIT: Not to mention that, in 3D space, "dipping the bow" is exactly equivalent to yawing laterally: you're moving in one direction and shooting in another, which sucks if you're trying to approach the enemy

So now we just need Venators made in groups of 3.

I always thought of it as having heavy firepower to the sides on the turrets, where fixed or limited travel weapons along the ships centerline and nose made up the rest. Similar to bow chasers on an age of sail ship. I think the biggest trouble is Star Wars has no basis in reality

Quick revision based on the above discussion:

The broadsides are now weaker than a VSD (or even some smaller ships) at long range, but devastating at close range. Meanwhile, the front arc is slightly better than a VSD's, but also narrower. The cost has also gone down a little, which should allow fielding 3 with full squadron support (or 4 naked) in a 400-point game.

The unusual difference between front and side dice should make an open (distance 3) line abreast formation very dangerous: ahead of them are VSD-like cones of destruction at long range, and if you try to slash between two of them like you would with VSDs you will take six black dice to the face. So you really need to outflank the formation as a whole.

So probably this is more thematic, and certainly very different from the Providence. But extensive playtesting will be a must, as with the rest of the Clone Wars material.

I like that layout way better. Looks closer to what I think about it. Large base?

Large, yes.

And now I must have 3 Venators just to try this out.

I really need to start making more large bases.

Oh, I like that layout. Now I suddenly want a fleet of those. Gotta ask, no turns at speed 3?

Oh, also the Arquitens looks like it should be able to shoot all of its guns forward. I would think that would mean a layout similar to a small VSD.

^2

I don't have the time to look through all 47 pages of this topic; so does anyone recall if DA has made any republic era VSD cards?

Oh, I like that layout. Now I suddenly want a fleet of those. Gotta ask, no turns at speed 3?

Oh, also the Arquitens looks like it should be able to shoot all of its guns forward. I would think that would mean a layout similar to a small VSD.

^2

The Arquitens is interesting, because of its size and layout, you could make an argument for either the front arc heavy version, or the broadside heavy version. However, looking at TCW these were used as quick support vessels for the Venators, providing flanking firepower to the standard 3 Venator wedge. It is for that role that the are equipped in DAs cards. I think this is another case where depiction trumps design.

While Rebels depicts them as a front on blockade ship, you only ever see the quad turrets fire. The Turbolasers in the sides never fire.

I don't have the time to look through all 47 pages of this topic; so does anyone recall if DA has made any republic era VSD cards?

Yep.

http://armadashipyards.com/2015/08/29/victory-class-star-destroyer/

I need to stop having other commitments, this is just too good for other things (life, job, school) to keep me away from. This is honestly my favorite thread on the entire forum, and the community of this group of people counts for a lot there.

For reposting the Providence, DA apparently either dug them up or came to roughly the same conclusions I did, so we're square either way. I do appreciate that the Destroyer variant can equip Engine Techs for net Speed 3, an alternative to a flat Speed 3 we can consider and playtest. (Speed 3 was my original suggestion; the carrier variant gave up engineering space for that hangar bay; even the quite daft EU got that right.) Giving the carrier dual OR slots has my full support (very dangerous on CIS ships, gotta give us Loyalists a challenge), and the Destroyer version looks like a solid core of a CIS fleet, which it should be in the absence of Lucrehulk ludicrousness.

The only part I'm a bit sketchy on is the cost of Invincible. Without having run the formulas myself, is 10 pts what that upgrade comes out to on its own? Had you asked me to cost just that ability, I would have done 8. As a primarily Imperial player, I place a premium on minimizing my foreplanning, and thus Command Dials (Yay Relentless!), freeing up mental processing power for more tactical thinking. Four Command Dials is a lot, more than any ship equipped any which way to date other than Dreadnought-class cruisers. Does anyone else have an opinion on this, particularly people who have run the 4 stack Dreadnoughts?

I'm kicking myself for not coming up with that Venator setup. True honesty means I have to object to the art on the new Star Destroyer card, but if that's my biggest quibble, I think we all see the value of the new setup. As a Republic player, that makes formations of Venators infinitely more deadly than they used to be, especially in line abreast or 3-ship V formations so common in EU portrayals. That I like it so much makes me a tad worried that it will be OP, but black range means how carefully I shepherd my battle wagons hasn't changed in difficulty, just what I am doing when I shepherd them. That cost difference is a bit broad, but it isn't bigger than V-1/V-2 and the Command version is significantly less intimidating in close combat, which it should be.

For CIS Fighters, I have the following ideas. All of the following is WIP, so slashes indicate various theories. Criticism is welcome, especially on the EWAG costs. None of the following are Droid fighters, but none are supposed to directly replace any Droid units either.

Nantex-class Geonosian System Defense Fighter

Hull: 3/4

AS: 2 Blue

Battery: Blue

Speed: 3

Counter 2/3

Cost: 10/11(?)

Intended as a line defense starfighter intended to bleed Republic squadrons attempting to punch through.

Porax-38 Starfighter

Hull: 4

AS: 2 Black, Blue

Battery: Red

Speed: 3

Cost: 11

A utility starfighter designed to bleed non-ace squadrons and add weight to anti-ship strikes.

Ace: Cade Bane, Porax-38 Xanadu Blood

Hull: 4

AS: 2 Black, 2 Blue

Battery: Black

Speed: 4

Grit

Unused Accuracy results may count as damage against enemy squadrons

Tokens: Scatter, Brace

Cost: 17

Ace: General Grievous, Belbullab-22

Hull: 5

AS: 3 Blue, Black

Battery: Red

Speed: 3

Immune to starship anti-squadron fire unless engaged by enemy fighters

Tokens: 2 Brace

Cost: 18 (?)

Ace: Asajj Ventress, Ginivex-class Starfighter

Hull: 4

AS: 3 Blue, 2 Black

Battery: Blue

Speed: 4

Swarm

When attacking a damaged squadron, your blue AS dice may be exchanged for two black die. (This may be way way too powerful)

Tokens: Scatter, Brace

Cost: 20+

Quick revision based on the above discussion:

The broadsides are now weaker than a VSD (or even some smaller ships) at long range, but devastating at close range. Meanwhile, the front arc is slightly better than a VSD's, but also narrower. The cost has also gone down a little, which should allow fielding 3 with full squadron support (or 4 naked) in a 400-point game.

The unusual difference between front and side dice should make an open (distance 3) line abreast formation very dangerous: ahead of them are VSD-like cones of destruction at long range, and if you try to slash between two of them like you would with VSDs you will take six black dice to the face. So you really need to outflank the formation as a whole.

So probably this is more thematic, and certainly very different from the Providence. But extensive playtesting will be a must, as with the rest of the Clone Wars material.

Aren't VSD's supposed to be significantly more powerful than Venators in ship to ship, filling a battleship role and with slightly later technology & warfare experience implemented vs a slightly more dated battlecarrier which sacrifices a lot of space to hold so many fighters?

A Victory is more powerful in the sense of its size vs the Venator. Medium to Large the Venator is weak compared to other ships in its class. That said, the Victory was designed to blackade and bombard. Ship to ship combat performance was why the Empire made the Vic-II. The original Victory-I was poor in space combat because of its limited speed and manuverability.

Invincible. Without having run the formulas myself, is 10 pts what that upgrade comes out to on its own? Had you asked me to cost just that ability, I would have done 8. As a primarily Imperial player, I place a premium on minimizing my foreplanning, and thus Command Dials (Yay Relentless!), freeing up mental processing power for more tactical thinking. Four Command Dials is a lot, more than any ship equipped any which way to date other than Dreadnought-class cruisers. Does anyone else have an opinion on this, particularly people who have run the 4 stack Dreadnoughts?

Running the 4 stack Dreads here quite a bit. Its not that bad on them because they are generally not having to command fighters so you can eliminate 1 of their 4 options and concentrate on the primary task of keeping your guns in the fight. Thankfully due to large broadsides it is also not to worried about navigating. Generally I found it to not hurt their game. A ship as large as the Invincible however may provide a great challenge as you have to balance the power it has in many areas and keep them on time to be effective. I would say 8-10 is a good guess. Only way to really prove it would be to put em down and use it many times to see how bad 4 really does hurt you. That model is so awesome though I am going for it as my first Clone Wars ship!

On another note I wanted to say the group continued our Tie Avenger/Defender/ Phantom testing this week. Some of our original concepts were revised to help cover situations we did not forsee. We also didn't see the existing special rules covering many of their finer aspects. As FFG has shown, new rules will be a part of the game so we expect to see additional items in the game anyway. We came up with Strike & Cloak. These are also elite fighters and we decided to reflect them as such with the earlier suggested Limited/Prototype rule.

Tie Defender (Revised 17 pts)

Speed: 5

Hull: 5

Anti-squadron: 4 Blue

Anti-ship: 1 Black

Limited (4) - Limit 4 squadrons of this type in your fleet.

Grit

Strike: Squadrons with the Strike keyword may ignore the Escort special rule.

*Meant to be a superiority fighter without compare, the Defender being able to pick targets at will in an engagment reflects that even enemy interceptors can't keep up with it.

Tie Phantom (13 pts)

Speed: 3

Hull: 4

Anti-squadron: 2 Blue, 1 Black

Anti-ship: 1 Blue

Limited (4)

Swarm

Cloak: While unactivated, squadrons with the Cloak keyword count as being obstructed when being attacked. Once activated it is not considered engaged until after it has made an attack.

*We are trying to tackle the cloaking to work within the existing rules. Obstruction is already part of the game. The trick was making sure cloak worked while the fighter activated so it could move as if obstructed before it shot. That was the justification of speed 3. Even though it seems slow, being able to move around the combat without worry makes speed 3 quite sufficient.

I've been doing some looking at the three small CIS ship priorities, and have reached some conclusions. First, I'm having trouble justifying the C-9979 as anything better than an ATR-6 and a Lambda in one platform. Like, a lot of trouble. The Republic needs some love in this area, but we've got both the Nu-class and Eta-class shuttles for that role (the latter quite combat capable, the other far less so). Second, neither the Pinnace or the Wavecrest have well defined roles, so for now they're floating in Arquitens/Gladiator territory, with the latter having an emphasis on anti-fighter combat.

Geonosian Pinnace - Hereby christened for the sake of the thread the Uhlan class (the ship looks like a lance to me, but we've got a Lancer)

Hull: 5

Shields: 2/2/2

C/S/E: 2/2/3

Armament: Red, Blue, Black/2 Red, 2 Blue/Red

Anti-Squadron: Blue

Defense: EBR

Maneuver: Nebulon

Upgrades: Officer, Turbolasers, DR, Cargo(?), What else?

Cost: 55ish

Utility starship, more punch than a CR90 but an equivalent fleet utility role from titles

Wavecrest-class Frigate

Hull: 4

Shields: 3/2/2

C/S/E: 2/1/3

Armament: 2 Red, Blue/2 Red/2 Blue

Anti-Squadron: 2 Blue

Defense: EBR

Maneuver: ? (Should be relatively agile)

Upgrades: Officer, OR, Support Team ?

Cost: 45ish

Light anti-fighter picket ship. Both of these ships could reasonably be upped in the punch department, but I want a feel for what people feel appropriate

C-9979 Shuttle/Boarding Craft

Hull: 7 (This thing is huge)

AS: 2 Blue

Battery: Black

Speed: 2

Shuttle or Board (Versions with each)

Heavy

Counter 1

Cost: 15

I find the small ships the biggest challenge. There is so little wiggle room it is hard not to make corvette cutouts.

I kind of like the fat boarding shuttle though.

I can't math. Ventress' ace ability does literally nothing to her damage output except sacrifice the accuracy results. In light of this detail her new rule is thus: When attacking an ace squadron, that squadron may not spend defense tokens.

I find the small ships the biggest challenge. There is so little wiggle room it is hard not to make corvette cutouts.

I kind of like the fat boarding shuttle though.

I agree, there is only so much space between a CR90 and the larger small ships. However, there is plenty of room GI a little ultra maneuverable ship. In the most extreme case, up to two clicks of use at all speeds, 2 AS, Battery of 1R/0/0 or 0/1R/0 (Blue also being viable.), hull 2, shields 2/1/0 or 1/1/0. CSE of 1/0/1.

Yes, it would be more fragile than some squadrons, and possibly cheaper.

Quick revision based on the above discussion:

The broadsides are now weaker than a VSD (or even some smaller ships) at long range, but devastating at close range. Meanwhile, the front arc is slightly better than a VSD's, but also narrower. The cost has also gone down a little, which should allow fielding 3 with full squadron support (or 4 naked) in a 400-point game.

The unusual difference between front and side dice should make an open (distance 3) line abreast formation very dangerous: ahead of them are VSD-like cones of destruction at long range, and if you try to slash between two of them like you would with VSDs you will take six black dice to the face. So you really need to outflank the formation as a whole.

So probably this is more thematic, and certainly very different from the Providence. But extensive playtesting will be a must, as with the rest of the Clone Wars material.

Aren't VSD's supposed to be significantly more powerful than Venators in ship to ship, filling a battleship role and with slightly later technology & warfare experience implemented vs a slightly more dated battlecarrier which sacrifices a lot of space to hold so many fighters?

This

Quick revision based on the above discussion:

The broadsides are now weaker than a VSD (or even some smaller ships) at long range, but devastating at close range. Meanwhile, the front arc is slightly better than a VSD's, but also narrower. The cost has also gone down a little, which should allow fielding 3 with full squadron support (or 4 naked) in a 400-point game.

The unusual difference between front and side dice should make an open (distance 3) line abreast formation very dangerous: ahead of them are VSD-like cones of destruction at long range, and if you try to slash between two of them like you would with VSDs you will take six black dice to the face. So you really need to outflank the formation as a whole.

So probably this is more thematic, and certainly very different from the Providence. But extensive playtesting will be a must, as with the rest of the Clone Wars material.

Aren't VSD's supposed to be significantly more powerful than Venators in ship to ship, filling a battleship role and with slightly later technology & warfare experience implemented vs a slightly more dated battlecarrier which sacrifices a lot of space to hold so many fighters?

This

First, I'm not completely convinced that the new Venator is an improvement on the Victory, especially in cost per unit punch. Second, both ships had deadly reputations in ship to ship combat, the Venator a battle cruiser with a carrier complement, the Victory more a heavy cruiser. For a modern analogy, I'd suggest a comparison of the Kuznetsov aircraft-carrying cruiser (Venator) to the Slava class cruiser (Victory). Both are formidable warships, one optimized for ship to ship combat more than the other, but both quite formidable. Third, fluff is only thematically guiding the new arrangement of the Venator. It is a Large, and intended to be the bulwark of the Republic fleet, which it was, whereas the Victory is a medium and less central to Republic strategy and flavor. One saw service far longer than the other, but that is the nature of Imperial tactical doctrine, or more really the fact that the EU created one and Lucas the other years later. We are not interested in a fluff comparison, which the Venator (200m longer, and packing a main battery equivalent to that of an ISD, something the Victory did not have) should win out anyway, but thematic development of playable warships. As a final note, these cards are being built to reflect the ships when they were the top of the line fleet ships during the Clone Wars, not the antiquated units that would serve in the Galactic Civil War twenty years later. I feel fully justified in the nature of the current cards, but as customs, you are welcome to edit them in your own play to your hearts' desire and report the results back here. I'm sure we will find them fascinating.

Didn't known the Venator was such a beast...not really into the CW stuff. Then it makes a lot more sense.

So CW era ships are not necessarily meant to be compared to GCW era ships? A good idea, IMO. That should remove some constraints and make room a better game.

(I prefer to steer WELL AWAY from any modern analogies, since they have about nothing to do with Star Wars)