I'm looking forward to the Acclamator-class myself. Dunno why, but I like that ship. Then again, I don't think it's currently cannon. You never see one in the prequels, and did it ever show up in Clone Wars? I know it was in Rebel Commando, but that counts for nothing. Always been a fan of the Venator, too. It's a shame about Dinsey clamping down on Clone Wars stuff. I've always thought it would be great of FFG to do things Flames of War style - have Early War (Clone Wars), Mid War (GCW) and Late War (FA-era). You can use early ships in a late game, but their point cost is lower because they're crap by comparison.

I wonder if they'll bring back things like the Carrack cruiser or Corellian gunboat. Hell, I even think the Interdictor cruiser is non-cannon at this point, unless it's been in one of the new books. And didn't there used to be a dedicated escort carrier for the Imps? I seem to remember one from the Rebellion video game. That'd be an interesting one - a ship with a lot of HP, very little maneuverability or offensive firepower, but plenty of room for squadron upgrades and a high squadron value.

The Acclamator is 100% canon. It has multiple appearances in the Battle of Geonosis and the rallying on Coruscant, as well as the canon Clone Wars TV show. The Rebels TV show has introduced Interdictors and Quasar Fire carriers for their respective factions, as well as the Hammerhead things.

I just wish there was a bit more variation in design for the Imperial Fleet; The obsession with triangles is something that has long put me off from really investing in the Imperial Fleet.

In terms of new ships, I feel FFG might go towards Rebels for inspiration rather than going for the prequels (apparently their deal doesn't go there), with the Arquitens, Interdictor, Quasar Fire and maybe the old Hammerhead cruisers.

To be honest, I really think that the new designs in Rebels is to allow the sale of merchandise

Here's some pictures of my Venator and Acclamator just after a first pass of priming, I tried to capture the detail because it is there in abundance. The Venator will be an ISD I with 2x expanded hangars full of Torrents, the Acclamator will be a VSD I.

http://imgur.com/ADL0Xqu

http://imgur.com/g4PHNyD

http://imgur.com/hkuCI3t

http://imgur.com/91Sg7j3

http://imgur.com/Lp780ve

Awesome ships ! Unfortunately, you can't have 2 Expanded Hangars

Here's some pictures of my Venator and Acclamator just after a first pass of priming, I tried to capture the detail because it is there in abundance. The Venator will be an ISD I with 2x expanded hangars full of Torrents, the Acclamator will be a VSD I.

http://imgur.com/ADL0Xqu

http://imgur.com/g4PHNyD

http://imgur.com/hkuCI3t

http://imgur.com/91Sg7j3

http://imgur.com/Lp780ve

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't drooling at the aspect of buying a Venator and running it as an ISD.

Yet then again the SD cards made for them have their batteries on the sides...and it makes going broadside much more appealing.

Keep me posted on your progress, I'm strongly considering getting one...I'd have to go all out with card stock for the base, cards for it, act...it's too good of a model not to get the full treatment.

I just wish there was a bit more variation in design for the Imperial Fleet; The obsession with triangles is something that has long put me off from really investing in the Imperial Fleet.

While I agree that variation would be nice, the triangle design is practical. The bridge windows have a wide, unobstructed view of the area forward and above the vessel, and some lines of sight to below the ship. With the heavy guns placed where they are, a triangle of doom can either offer broadside fire with half it's guns, or bring them all to bear on a target ahead, and slightly elevated.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't drooling at the aspect of buying a Venator and running it as an ISD.

Yet then again the SD cards made for them have their batteries on the sides...and it makes going broadside much more appealing.

Keep me posted on your progress, I'm strongly considering getting one...I'd have to go all out with card stock for the base, cards for it, act...it's too good of a model not to get the full treatment.

I'm not totally convinced that the Venator should have primarily side batteries. In the Clone Wars cartoon at least, they often just fire forward from a long range. The Venator's armament is:

DBY-827 heavy dual turbolaser turrets (8)

Medium dual turbolaser cannons (2)

Point-defense laser cannons (52)

Heavy proton torpedo tubes (4)

with the note that a large amount of power can be redirected through the 8 primary guns.

ISD I is:

Dual heavy turbolaser turrets (6)

Dual heavy ion cannon turrets (2)

Quad heavy turbolasers (2)

Triple medium turbolasers (3)

Medium turbolasers (2)

Taim & Bak XX-9 heavy turbolasers (60)

Borstel NK-7 ion cannons (60)

I'm not 100% sure if the Venator should be a ISD I or ISD II, but I don't see a reason for it to have weak forward fire.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't drooling at the aspect of buying a Venator and running it as an ISD.

Yet then again the SD cards made for them have their batteries on the sides...and it makes going broadside much more appealing.

Keep me posted on your progress, I'm strongly considering getting one...I'd have to go all out with card stock for the base, cards for it, act...it's too good of a model not to get the full treatment.

I'm not totally convinced that the Venator should have primarily side batteries. In the Clone Wars cartoon at least, they often just fire forward from a long range. The Venator's armament is:

DBY-827 heavy dual turbolaser turrets (8)

Medium dual turbolaser cannons (2)

Point-defense laser cannons (52)

Heavy proton torpedo tubes (4)

with the note that a large amount of power can be redirected through the 8 primary guns.

ISD I is:

Dual heavy turbolaser turrets (6)

Dual heavy ion cannon turrets (2)

Quad heavy turbolasers (2)

Triple medium turbolasers (3)

Medium turbolasers (2)

Taim & Bak XX-9 heavy turbolasers (60)

Borstel NK-7 ion cannons (60)

I'm not 100% sure if the Venator should be a ISD I or ISD II, but I don't see a reason for it to have weak forward fire.

Aside from the Proton torpedeos, the primary batteries are located on the sides of the ship, the 8 heavy turrets and the 2 medium ones are all along the side.

Honestly the front should house the torpedos, and point defense, maaaaaaybe the first two turrets would fire forward.

Turrets firing forward is the entire reason for the triangular shape favored by the empire. The heavy battery can all fire to their own broadside, yes, but by the principal of superposition (or simply by angling the ship down slightly) all firepower can be brought to bear directly forward. That's the kind of design the empire has used for a long time:

http://imgur.com/a/SWzZP

Turrets firing forward is the entire reason for the triangular shape favored by the empire. The heavy battery can all fire to their own broadside, yes, but by the principal of superposition (or simply by angling the ship down slightly) all firepower can be brought to bear directly forward. That's the kind of design the empire has used for a long time:

http://imgur.com/a/SWzZP

I'd forgotten about that TBH.

DA's latest take on the Venator has it firing forward as its primary arc.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/175690-das-custom-cards/?p=1903534

At 1100m the Venator is closer to a Victory class than an Imperial class in size, and as Mr Corvette has pointed out is nowhere near as "fat" as the Imperial. With such a high squadron focus I'd see it being even less heavily armed than a Victory.

I like the Venator for what it is, but I don't think it fits with Armada. The Venator was the main line of battleship for the clone wars but it is too much of a throwback to have in the gritty armada GCW setting. It would be out of place and undergunned.

Much better to have a new style of attack cruiser that shares the Imperial aesthetic, medium size, and fast enough to operate with ISDs.

Personal preference from a gameplay perspective - ISD speed, 8 hull/10 shields (same as victory), Sqn 2 or 3, with a balance of blue dice firepower and support/defensive retrofit upgrades to mark it out as a more modern technology ship compared to the victory class, but less raw firepower.

At 1100m the Venator is closer to a Victory class than an Imperial class in size, and as Mr Corvette has pointed out is nowhere near as "fat" as the Imperial. With such a high squadron focus I'd see it being even less heavily armed than a Victory.

That was the approach The Essential Guide to Warfare took - stating the Victory was smaller but more heavily armed.

Much better to have a new style of attack cruiser that shares the Imperial aesthetic, medium size, and fast enough to operate with ISDs.

Personal preference from a gameplay perspective - ISD speed, 8 hull/10 shields (same as victory), Sqn 2 or 3, with a balance of blue dice firepower and support/defensive retrofit upgrades to mark it out as a more modern technology ship compared to the victory class, but less raw firepower.

Fractalsponge's Procursator (also made it into TEGTW) might fit - it's same size as Venator , but far more " Imperial -class shaped" - main differences - proportionally shorter tower neck, no secondary engines (only the 3 primary ones), no large belly hangar bay, and its main turrets are mounted along the center.

Just about finished with the Venator, needs some touching up and such:

http://i.imgur.com/C5tShXb.jpg

At 1100m the Venator is closer to a Victory class than an Imperial class in size, and as Mr Corvette has pointed out is nowhere near as "fat" as the Imperial. With such a high squadron focus I'd see it being even less heavily armed than a Victory.

I like the Venator for what it is, but I don't think it fits with Armada. The Venator was the main line of battleship for the clone wars but it is too much of a throwback to have in the gritty armada GCW setting. It would be out of place and undergunned.

Much better to have a new style of attack cruiser that shares the Imperial aesthetic, medium size, and fast enough to operate with ISDs.

Personal preference from a gameplay perspective - ISD speed, 8 hull/10 shields (same as victory), Sqn 2 or 3, with a balance of blue dice firepower and support/defensive retrofit upgrades to mark it out as a more modern technology ship compared to the victory class, but less raw firepower.

Rather than compare the Venator to the ISD, compare it to the Home One MC80. The Home One MC80 is 1200m, the Venator 1100m, but more bulky.

https://plus.google.com/117993279660351289096/posts/JqrrXUWWSFc

While the MC80 has more modern weapon systems, the Venator would have had at least moderate weapon system upgrades to allow it to continue to function effectively in the modern Imperial Navy, even if it is in a diminished capacity from its Clone War role.

Rather than compare the Venator to the ISD, compare it to the Home One MC80. The Home One MC80 is 1200m, the Venator 1100m, but more bulky.

I've seen volumetric figures that put a 3.2km Home One as 21.38 x the volume of a Venator.

A 3.2 km Home One is 12.37 x the volume of a 1.2 km Home One.

conclusion - if those figures are right, 1.2 km Home One is still bigger than Venator by volume.

Perhaps a card that has solid naked stats, but less upgrade slots than usual? This would represent the fact that older ships like these wouldn't be mounting the cutting-edge weapons you'd find on ImpStars and such.

Just about finished with the Venator, needs some touching up and such:

http://i.imgur.com/C5tShXb.jpg

Your venator looks great man! I can't wait to do one in Imperial Colors!

Rather than compare the Venator to the ISD, compare it to the Home One MC80. The Home One MC80 is 1200m, the Venator 1100m, but more bulky.

I've seen volumetric figures that put a 3.2km Home One as 21.38 x the volume of a Venator.

A 3.2 km Home One is 12.37 x the volume of a 1.2 km Home One.

conclusion - if those figures are right, 1.2 km Home One is still bigger than Venator by volume.

I dont think thats the case with the FFG model. Look at the pics. Those were just my experiments to see if the Venator belongs on a large base. The two are to scale of each other, or **** close. While I was a fan of the 3.2 km Home One, Saddly that is not the model we got.

The 3.2km figure was the only one I could find volumetric estimates for.

(3.2)^3 divided by (1.2)^3 equals 12.37 - so a 1.2 km Home One would be small - just not quite as small as a Venator.

Given that the Venator is still larger than the Victory - it should have in-between Victory and Home One's number of hit points.

Since both are the same (8) I don't think the Venator needs more than that - a 9 HP Venator might be a bit much.

The 3.2km figure was the only one I could find volumetric estimates for.

(3.2)^3 divided by (1.2)^3 equals 12.37 - so a 1.2 km Home One would be small - just not quite as small as a Venator.

Given that the Venator is still larger than the Victory - it should have in-between Victory and Home One's number of hit points.

Since both are the same (8) I don't think the Venator needs more than that - a 9 HP Venator might be a bit much.

If anything the Victory should have more HP considering it was more heavily armored than the Venator. The Venator had that long flight deck in the front, which I imagine might have been a hindrance in ship to ship combat.

Yes. Large open internal spaces full of fuel and munitions definitely don't lend themselves to front line combat.

Maybe stronger shields then?

Awesome ships ! Unfortunately, you can't have 2 Expanded Hangars

Why again, is this?

Awesome ships ! Unfortunately, you can't have 2 Expanded Hangars

Why again, is this?

Probably to prevent people from front loading all of their fighter commands to one ship, and not two?