This is where I am at with using the VSD. I actually like the set up as the VSD's can play flank guard and carrier.

Faction: Galactic Empire
Points: 400/400

Commander: Admiral Motti

Assault Objective: Advanced Gunnery
Defense Objective: Fleet Ambush
Navigation Objective: Minefields

[ flagship ] Imperial II-Class Star Destroyer (120 points)
- Admiral Motti ( 24 points)
- Avenger ( 5 points)
- Wulff Yularen ( 7 points)
- Phylon Q7 Tractor Beams ( 6 points)
- Electronic Countermeasures ( 7 points)
- XI7 Turbolasers ( 6 points)
- SW 7 Ion Batteries ( 5 points)

Victory I-Class Star Destroyer (73 points)
- Phylon Q7 Tractor Beams ( 6 points)
- Rapid Reload ( 8 points)

Victory I-Class Star Destroyer (73 points)
- Phylon Q7 Tractor Beams ( 6 points)
- Rapid Reload ( 8 points)

2 TIE Interceptor Squadrons ( 22 points)
3 TIE Fighter Squadrons ( 24 points)

So, I had a game today to test out the Imperial and the Raider in a fleet with a VSD and I'm actually quite impressed by how the VSD compares with the ISD. It really holds up in terms of resilience, is less of a fire magnet than the ISD and doesn't have much less in the way of firepower. After all, when the opponent can use their Brace (and they will), the difference between 6 (average ISD front arc) and 4 (average VSD front arc) is quite unnoticeable. And with proper placement and Nav Tokens, I really don't find the VSDs that much harder to angle to get the shots.

Obviously, the ISD is a much better performer and is overall a direct upgrade to the VSD like it should rightfully be, but I don't think it pushes the Victory out of my fleet building just yet.

So, overall this was my third proper fleet battle playing the Imperials and here are a few things I noticed :

1) Rebel fleets got significantly more punch than in Wave 1. I faced a fleet with 2 CR90s with TRCs and being able to reliably throw 4 damage with a CF order at long range is quite impressive. Not yet in the broken/op category but it's a serious change in target priority.

2) Being more experienced with Rebels and having to specialize each ship to a specific role, I'm really starting to think that the VSD and ISD actually work less well when specialized. Obviously, each of the I and II classes have their own areas of preferences, but not to the point where a full carrier build is mandatory (unlike the Rebels). Smaller ships like the Glad and the Raider are actually the ones that should really be specialized based on their vastly different profiles (Glad for anti-ship, Raider for anti-squadron). Whereas VSDs and ISDs I feel work best when able to act both as a line ship and a carrier. In my list, the VSD was a dedicated carrier ship managing 4 interceptors, and I actually felt bad for not taking advantage of the ISD's 4 squadron capability. Rather than going full specialty like the Rebels, where each ship/squadron is a finely tuned tool, I feel that for the ISD/VSD each command is the tool, and not being able to use a command on a ship because it is not built for that or you don't have squadrons to activate is cutting the grass under the foot of the commander (but still early less experienced musings from the Imperial side ). At least when it comes to ISDs, VSDs. I think this is what makes Tarkin so powerful, because he's able to allow the player to choose carefully from his command toolbox each turn.

3) Speaking of ship-to-ship and ship-to-carrier edge for the I and II variants, I used to think that, being cheaper, the I variants of the Victory and the Imperials were more carrier material than their II counterparts. How wrong was I, or at least : how Wave 2 changed that !

Let me explain : Blue dice used to be one of the best tools to deal with ships due to the accuracies. But in an age where ECM are extremely commonplace and the Brace token has more value than ever, I find that black dice are the king of ship to ship combat. First of all, they mitigate all Evade tokens. Secondly, they have more damage potential than blue dice (1 average versus 0.75, so +33% more damage which isn't insignificant), and because Brace are so accessible, accuracy has lost value. Finally, because they require more Nav Tokens to actually be effective, and more Engineering Commands (because you're more likely to overlap several fields of fire compared to staying at blue range, especially when it comes to double arcing, so Engineering Commands are mandatory compared to just Nav), that leaves less space for the squadron commands.

On the contrary, blue dice having more range, you can stay further back to be in range and have less need for Nav / Engineering Commands, because it's easier to apply damage and at longer range it's less likely to be double arced. What that means is that it leaves more room for squadron commands in the stack, because less of them will need to be invested into getting the ship into a good firing range.

____

When it comes to VSDs, let's compare the following loadouts (I'm making the calculations as I type, so I'm not trying to sell a point here) : let's compare a Victory I managing 3 TIE Fighters and a Victory 2 managing 3 TIE Bombers. Both of them have managed to have their target at optimal range in their front arc, and they pop a squadron command :

1) Victory I average damage : 5.25 from its battery armament + 1.5 from the TIE Fighters = a total of 6.75 damage

2) Victory II average damage : 4.5 from its battery armament + 3 from the TIE Bombers = a total damage of 7.5 damage

(Let's note that the difference between these 2 damage value is 0.75 damage which isn't even a full damage, even with throwing bad anti-ship)

Both of these have roughly the same damage with an 11% difference, for a 15% premium on the Victory 2 bomber manager. So, the Victory 2 pays 14.93 points per ship damage at optimal range when managing bombers and the victory I pays 14.37 points per damage when managing TIE Fighters. Which means that, when the Victory 2 manages Bombers to do damage (+3 black dice with Bomber per turn), it pays roughly the same amount of points per damage as the Vic 1.

Now, let's compare both Vic 1 and 2 managing Bombers and fighting at their optimal range : Vic 1 (5.25 + 3 = 8.25), Vic 2 (4.5 + 3 = 7.5). But this time let's compare how much of damage comes from the squadrons in %.

- Vic I with Bombers : 3 / 8.25 = 36%

- Vic II with Bombers : 3 / 7.5 = 40%

- Vic I with Fighters : 1.5 / 6.75 = 22%

- Vic 2 with Fighters : 1.5 / 6 = 25%

Statistically speaking, the Vic 2 have a greater proportion of their damage coming from squadrons they activate by a factor of 10% over the Victory 1.

Finally, what does this analysis tells us ? First of all, it's that both are more efficient against ships when using squadrons so both should be built to be able to pop squadron commands on a whim. But more importantly, it shows that the VSD 2, in optimal range, does less damage than a Victory I if it doesn't activate squadrons. Likewise, a Victory I will have less chance of reaching black range if doesn't throw Navigate Commands to properly angle itself on the best interception trajectory.

____

So, with this TL;DR analysis, I retract my previous statement that Victory Is are more efficient as carriers and I feel they should be focused on ship to ship primarily, with the odd ability to activate squadrons. And because they won't activate all turns, I feel that the I variants of the VSD and the ISD classes are best served managing a fighter wing, which position will matter more than being activated in the ship phase.

Likewise, because the VSD 2s are more efficient when activating squadrons and need less command effort to reach optimal range, they should focus more on squadron commands than going close combat.

And I'll bet the same values hold true for the ISDs :

At optimal range the ISD I throws 6.75 damage on average and at optimal range, the ISD II throws 6 damage. So, the difference is actually exactly the same in terms of absolute damage differential. Interesting

Thing is, the ISD is so much more likely to be apply to apply all those dice. Its speed and manoeuvrability is so much better than the poor old vics.

The other issue I have is that to be effective against a large ship the vics will have to fly pretty close together, which makes them horribly vulnerable to gunnery teams.

But I like the combined arms/organic bomber support approach. Would be keen to see how it goes.

Definitely an interesting analysis MoffZen. However with the added pain in the arse a Vic I/I is to maneouver, I think I will stick with Vic I carriers for now. Yes, the black die armament is nice for ship-to-ship, but I find myself lacking of opportunities to fully bring it to bear. In a carrier-role its still a sturdy little TIE kennel that can lend some long range firepower, and punish the few rebels that somehow end up in close range, once every other game. You just dont get the 8 Hp 4/5 activation combo any cheaper around..

Definitely an interesting analysis MoffZen. However with the added pain in the arse a Vic I/I is to maneouver, I think I will stick with Vic I carriers for now. Yes, the black die armament is nice for ship-to-ship, but I find myself lacking of opportunities to fully bring it to bear. In a carrier-role its still a sturdy little TIE kennel that can lend some long range firepower, and punish the few rebels that somehow end up in close range, once every other game. You just dont get the 8 Hp 4/5 activation combo any cheaper around..

It's a pain to maneuver, which is whjy you can't rely on its basic maneuver template to get into range Contrary to many opinions, I'm in the camp that the Navigate commands don't benefit more nimble ships, but benefit more lumbering ships in order to get into position to properly fire their arc. After playing CR90s for a long time, I realized that only in very rare circumstances did I need the extra yaw (while the change in speed was always beneficial), while ships that can only turn 1 click actually really need that yaw if they want to angle well.

Considering a Victory I doubles its yaw value by popping a Navigate command, and considering it's never going to be able to change its speed more than 1 due to only having 2 speed, the Navigate Commands are invaluable to something such short range.

At speed 2 with a Navigate command, the VSD is as maneuvrable as an ISD, which isn't something to be overlooked

It definitely doesn't have the speed to be a hunter killer while the ISD does. So the Victory will rely more on its squadron commands early game. However, at speed 2 with Navigate commands, I never found it too hard to place into black dice range of the larger ships that are less maneuvrable and in double arc as well.

On the other hand, against smaller vessels, blue range is definitely more interesting than black range, so I would dedicate my II variants in hunting smaller vessels (and with Bombers). After all, because you need less damage, per ship to destroy it, you lose less potential damage throwing a VSD 2 + bombers on a CR90 (and you have the speed + reach to do it ).

____

@ Ophion : I'll tell you that later tonight after my 300 points battle with 2 Victories Not sure how it's going to go because I don't know what the Rebel scum will bring. But I'll definitely test that theory !

Here's the list I'm going to be throwing :

Victory I - Weapons Liaison, Expanded Hangar, Expanded launchers (I may remove the expanded launchers for something else like enchanced armament, for more flexibility, I don't know yet, or maybe dominator)

Victory II - Tarkin, Warlord, Defense Liaison

4 x TIE Fighters

Darth Vader

2 TIE Bombers

The idea here is to have the Warlord spam squadron commands to manage Vader and his Bombers, and switch in a pinch to the Nav or Engineering Command with the liaison and Tarkin, mainly targeting the smaller ships. The Victory I will go on a hunting mission against the larger vessels, popping squadron commands in a pinch when I feel I need air superiority.

Being a fan of Squadrons, I have to say that I like seeing 7 of them at 300 points

Has anyone been so far as to do more like...

Hang on, I'll try again. Has anyone using their VSDs as Carriers and long-range fire support vessels gone so far as to use Captain Needa? It seems that, for two points, that Evade would really come into its own on a ship that's intentionally hanging back at long range.

Or is everyone shoving him on their ISDs instead?

I've only used him on an ISD, but the idea of something as slow and ungainly as a Vic actually dodging turbolaser bolts is so funny that I have to try that out, if only to see the look on my opponent's face.

EU VicStars did "attack runs" in the Kevin J Anderson books, and barrel rolls in the Michael Stackpole books.

So the idea of one being unusually agile doesn't bother me. Maybe think of them as the Harrier to the Imperial-class's F-22.

Maybe think of them as the Harrier to the Imperial-class's F-22.

More like the large, heavy hammer to the Imperial-class's larger, slightly-less-heavy hammer.

I can say that I still get some good zone control with the Victory 1. Using them to deny an area where objectives are.

I also would like to echo Moffzen in regards to the use of Navigation commands to get the extra yaw. I give Cuthawolf headaches with those.

Vics have a place, it isn't the flashy role. It is like a football offensive lineman, they don't score the points they set up the team.

Exactly !

I played against 2 ISD 2 today, and to be honest, what they did could have been done equally well with Victories. I think that we're going to see a comeback of the Victory hull relatively soon !

VSD I has a solid place in my vader list.

I've had the opposite result. The victory for me only took like 3-4 ackbared shots to die. and couldnt really manage its defenses well with brace being shut down or both redirects blasting directy into hull.

I've had the opposite result. The victory for me only took like 3-4 ackbared shots to die. and couldnt really manage its defenses well with brace being shut down or both redirects blasting directy into hull.

Which is why I definitely think that each Victory should have a compliment of fighters to throw to the enemy and stay out of range if they are outgunned, Ready to pounce on the enemy when conditions are more favourable. After all, all it takes is 70 points MOV to get a 7-3, which is 3 X-Wings and a Corvette.

It might not be the most glorious tactic out there, but throwing ships directly in the enemy's favoured terrain is definitely not the most efficient tactic either.

It might not be the most glorious tactic out there, but throwing ships directly in the enemy's favoured terrain is definitely not the most efficient tactic either.

That's almost entirely the issue with the Victory, for me at least. It's the fact that to make it work, you have to employ tactics that just aren't as much fun. In the games where I get to throw my ISD and flanking Gladiators around the map with reckless abandon, I end up having a lot more fun, as does my opponent. And that's really why I'm playing the game to begin with. I just think if a ship will only contribute to your success through fairly dull tactics, it's failed in its role as a game piece.

What's Dull for you is the Excitement of the Diceroll for someone else...

Well my fleet is composed of them:) 1 X ISD, 9 X VSD, 3 x GSD, 1 x Vindicator heavy cruiser, 1 x Immobilizer, 2 x Raiders,3 x Nebulon B , and 70 squadrons of TIE's ,TIE Interceptors , TIE Advanced, TIE Bombers. Also 4 squadrons of TIE defenders, and 3 squadrons of Gunships, plus 2 squadrons of Storm trooper carriers.

So I like them very much. One great big wall of steel coming at you

What's Dull for you is the Excitement of the Diceroll for someone else...

If I wanted to hinge my fun on dice I'd reignite my gambling addiction. That's why I always go for Admiral Screed - you can't get shafted by the dice when you have control over them (until Mon Mothma gets involved).

It might not be the most glorious tactic out there, but throwing ships directly in the enemy's favoured terrain is definitely not the most efficient tactic either.

That's almost entirely the issue with the Victory, for me at least. It's the fact that to make it work, you have to employ tactics that just aren't as much fun. In the games where I get to throw my ISD and flanking Gladiators around the map with reckless abandon, I end up having a lot more fun, as does my opponent. And that's really why I'm playing the game to begin with. I just think if a ship will only contribute to your success through fairly dull tactics, it's failed in its role as a game piece.

We all have our preferences in gameplay I was talking more from a strategic standpoint.

And, to be fair, the ISDs are probably going to go down as well being thrown forward if they don't have a compliment of fighters to help them out. Ackbar lists and all, you know. Today I downed an Imperial 2 with Motti with a Rebel list that in retrospect wasn't particularily sharp, so against squadron spam or large amounts of red dice on a kiting fleet, I'm pretty sure the ISDs will go down quite fast as well. It took only 4 turns of firing on it with a CR90A, an AFMK2 and a Neb Escort, without any gun upgrade.

Even Screed, who is good without the shadow of a doubt, requires to get in range to trigger his abilities. If you get downed before that, it's a bit of a shame

I'm not arguing that Imperials should hold back, and Screed definitely allows them to afford a more mobile playstyle due to being able to make each pass count thanks to its crits. But I wouldn't want to remove my ability to hang back, even with ISDs, if I don't have enough fighters which are good to apply damage at range.

We all have our preferences in gameplay I was talking more from a strategic standpoint...

It was less that I was saying you must always fly forwards all of the time, and more that the ISD at least gives you the option to do that. Get your order of activations right, stay canny on the Navigate commands and the ISD is a very versatile ship - which the VSD just isn't, really.

I'll put it this way: the ISD allows you to fly in interesting and fun ways, just like with the GSD and even the Raider.

Everything everyone's said so far is that the only way to make the VSD competitive with the more modern ships is to hold it back from the fight and keep it bossing squadrons around - which might be alright for some, but for me this game comes alive when I'm plotting epic manoeuvres, brutally punishing salvos of fire and dishing out - and taking - lots and lots of damage. When I want to command TIE Fighters, I'll turn to X-Wing. When I want to smash capital ships together, I come to this game - that's what it's all about.

Oh, sorry if you took it the wrong way. I did not want to infer that flying fast and around wasn't strategic. It definitely is strategic when it's the more favourable approach

What I wanted to say is that you were arguing about the "interest" and the "fun" of the maneuvers, which I'm cool with, but it wasn't really in the scope of my analysis

I completely disagree with people saying that the only way the VSD is effective is if you focus on squadron commands. Early game, maybe, when it will have trouble getting into optimal range. But later game when he's got some ships in range, focusing on duel approach is more important (because with the VSD and the ISD you want to get that double arc on your target).

Regarding your last sentence, rest assured, squadrons don't have the firepower to carry the damage However, I don't think capital ships only is the most effective way to run the fleet. In the end of the day, capital ships matter a hell of a lot more than squadrons. But refusing to use squadrons as a tool to support your ships is a decision I can't approve, because you'll be smashed by players who play with lots of squadrons.

It's not that I don't use squadrons at all - I always have a CAP of at least a few TIE Fighters. But I use them because it's thematic for Star Wars, and because I need to to counter enemy fighters. It's just not where I get my satisfaction from, however.

It's one of the reasons I'm sort-of miffed about the emergence of "Rhymerballs" and "Fireballs" and "Janballs" and other kinds of balls. I actually kind of like the idea of bombers being a threat to ships, so you take fighters to lock them down - but the ships are still the stars of the show in that dynamic. With these "power-builds" of fighters, it feels like the spotlight is passing to things like Major Rhymer surrounded by four Firesprays - it might be effective, but it's hardly thematic in the slightest, and it takes away from the glory (a little) of ISDs facing off against Mon Cal cruisers in blistering knife-fights.

Put another way - squadrons as part of a fleet is fine. Supporting ships with bombers or protecting ships from bombers, it's awesome. But squadrons as an entity in their own right, such as the Fireball discussed above, that doesn't really rely on the capital ships, just kind of annoys me.

In those terms, using Victorys as carriers in part of a bigger fleet is brilliant - but with only 400 points to play around with, I'd much rather spend those points on awesome ship-to-ship conflicts, and keep the fighters as a necessary after-thought.

Well, I haven't faced a proper fireball yet, so I can't comment on it in game specficifically. Theoretically though, I'm not really afraid of it. I'll just throw every fighter and anti fighter barrage I can muster at it. Just drowning them in the number of dice

But that's why you need a serious compliment of fighters, not just a token CAP. Besides, you pay for 3-4 squadron activations on the VSD/ISD. Not only removing you from an interesting tool you can use, but thematically no VSD/ISD would go out without several squadrons of TIE Fighters and at least one squadron of Bombers each.

Imagine 2 ISDs with 4 squadrons each. Not only this is thematic, but it is also effective as a defense. Any Firespray you kill will reduce the effectiveness of the Rhymerball, while ship effectiveness will stay the same until it's destroyed bar from crits.

The thing is, the VSD and the ISD are both main line ships and both carriers. Focusing on one role while not taking advantage of the other is not doing them justice both thematically and strategically.

Besides...it would be a shame to not use the VSD with the masses of Tie Fighters I'm painting.

Theme games will see mine hit the table often, they apparently became more popular post Endor.

I'm new to playing Imps. I prefer to play the underdog or lesser played faction so naturally in Wave 1 I played Rebels and in Wave 2 I now play Imps. For me it's hard to imagine a scenario in which I would run a VSD. Their best role may be with Tractor Beams to reach out and slow down a fast moving or fast flanking Rebel fleet with a little bit of give and take damage too. Unfortunately that may be a bit too niche to make me consider flying it. Nothing posted in this thread has changed my mind. It can be used as a squadron carrier but the points spent to create that are much too rich for my blood. I'd rather fly a 56 pt GSD I and use the points I've saved to upgrade my squadrons to ones with Rouge. That offers more versatility anyway. I may try some VSD builds but I'm not going to try to force one into a competitive list just to say I can.