Anyone else feel that imperials have much less options avalaible when building a list? I’m not just saying they have 1 less ship than rebels: the matter is the viability of those ships. Let’s take a closer look:

Raider I: situationally ok, rarely outstanding. Nevertheless, it has a role and can fulfill it if played correctly. Somehow viable IMO.

Raider II: never seen one in play, costs 4 points more than the I variant while losing AA firepower not being able to equip ord exp. I was toying with fielding one with OP along Avenger, but I can’t really see it being competitive. Not viable IMO.

GSD I: <3 we all know that it’s viable, in fact it’s almost ALWAYS fielded with Demolisher title.

GSD II: never seen one in play. I heard of the weird combo with sensor team, but it doesn’t appeal to me at all: high cost, not so high threat, why aren’t you fielding a GSD I Demolisher? Not viable IMO.

VSD I: ok as a carrier, good all around tough ship, no complaints except for its speed, which is a known issue. All in all still viable IMO.

VSD II: 12 points more than the I variant? Really? Who fields that? Not viable IMO.

ISD I: awesome but expensive, although less than the II variant. No complaints here: if you wanna go all in and park it in the middle of the enemy battleline, this is the ship to go. Lack of defensive retrofit hurts, but massive hull helps here.

ISD II: currently most expensive ship in the game. Still, everybody loves it and there’s a reason, as it’s the unkillable monster machine that one would expect ISD to be.

So, out of 8 ships, I would say that 3 of them are the really good ones (GSD 1 and both ISDs), 2 are okay (raider and VSD 1), 3 suck (raider 2, VSD 2, GSD 2).

Now let’s compare those numbers with the rebels:

CR 90: both version are good and viable, although usually in different lists, 2/2.

Neb b: both version viable, mainly due to titles (especially Yavaris for the escort frigate and Salvation for refit), 2/2.

AF II: B version is great, A not so much. Still, I’ve seen a guy use it with some degree of success in an all ship list. For the sake of comparison, let’s assume the B version is good and the A is not, 1 / 2.

MC 30: both versions are great, I’m not even arguing over this. Yes, they’re a bit costly, but as this is my favorite ship, I can’t really complain. Ever. 2/2.

MC 80: command one is arguably better because of reduced cost and higher squadron value. I don’t think I ever saw an assault version fielded, but I for one don’t dislike it entirely because of double defensive retrofit and increased AA potential. Again, for the sake of comparison, let’s assume 1 / 2.

Out of 10 ships, rebels can thus effectively play 8, with only 2 apparently being sub par choices. That’s 3 more than imperials if we assume raider I and VSD I are viable ships, 5 if we don’t. That’s a lot of difference, really, and the reason I find myself using rebels more than imps these days, despite loving the imperial war doctrine of victory by charging in guns blazing. I’m not saying rebels >> imps, because simply it isn’t true: both can make very effective lists, and maybe imps even more than rebs right now. I just find odd that when fielding imps, who supposedly have an organized military capable of conquering the whole galaxy, I’m restricted to fewer options than a ragged mass of rebel scum.

TL;DR: imps have 3 to 5 viable ships, depending on personal preference, while rebels have 8.

What do you guys think of this?

I would agree and add to this that Imperials are also more predictable once they get on the table. When playing against them you know what they will do but with rebels there are more tactical options open to them once the game starts.

I love the GSD2. It's not the red from black conversion (though it can be useful), it's the extra blue AA die. I tend to run minimal squadrons, 4 TIEs, having multiple 2 die AA ships via ISD(s), GSD2, and Raider(s) helps keep the mosquito count down. I find it's also a better investment then forcing in a few more TIEs.

The Raider2 is currently the hardest to justify in a list, though I've had minor success with only SW7s acting as a screener to outside of my ISD... But not enough to make it a regular inclusion.

I dont think your judgement is very objective. Both GSD2s as well as VSD2s have their uses and definitely do not blatantly suck. They see use in playlists, even though they are not the most competitive ships in the fleet.

Your judgement on the rebel ships seems much more forgiving, for example the CR90b is described as "good and viable", yet it clearly is taken lesser in games when compared to the A variant. Same for the Neb B, it is a viable ship but has its drawbacks and does not play a big roll in the latest games I plaid - token Yavaris from time to time, that is it.

Following your rating scale, I would say Imps have 3 good choices (ISD I+II, GSD I), 4 average choices (both VSDs, GSD II, raider I). The raider II is the black swan so far, and definitely has to find a niche to see play.

Both the GSD2 and Raider2 are situationally useful - the former as an anti-fighter platform and the later as a ion cannon platform.

The VSD2 is still a dominant force on the battle field. Losing 1 Red / 1 Blue vs an ISD2 front arc for 35 less points, capable of being built in many different ways. Literally the only thing it is missing out on is a Defensive Retrofit slot from going from "good" to "exceptional".

I love the GSD2. It's not the red from black conversion (though it can be useful), it's the extra blue AA die. I tend to run minimal squadrons, 4 TIEs, having multiple 2 die AA ships via ISD(s), GSD2, and Raider(s) helps keep the mosquito count down. I find it's also a better investment then forcing in a few more TIEs.

Well, GSD 2 is 6 points more expensive than a GSD, which isn't much. I agree on the AA dice, but as GSDs usually run OE to maximize ship damage and not GT, I don't think one would get much use of it as an AA platform. I mean, GSD with its black dice battery is a ship killer, if you need AA why are you not getting a titled raider I with OE?

I dont think your judgement is very objective. Both GSD2s as well as VSD2s have their uses and definitely do not blatantly suck. They see use in playlists, even though they are not the most competitive ships in the fleet.

Your judgement on the rebel ships seems much more forgiving, for example the CR90b is described as "good and viable", yet it clearly is taken lesser in games when compared to the A variant. Same for the Neb B, it is a viable ship but has its drawbacks and does not play a big roll in the latest games I plaid - token Yavaris from time to time, that is it.

That's why I was asking for other people thoughts in the first place. Anyway, even tho an argument can be made for GSD2 like Mad Cat said, nobody will ever convince me VSD 2 is a good ship: you're paying 12 points more than a VSD 1 that you could be spending in, say, 2 x17 upgrades across the fleet to trade 3 black dices for 3 blue dices that hurt less and only have 50% more range than blacks.

As for rebel ships, CR90b is awesome (I am currently flying a Dodonna powered list with a cr90b Dodonna's pride, and she's often the MVP: low cost, great utility. Tantive IV is extremely good on it as well)and Neb b, well, are Neb b: you won't see them in an Ackbar list, but I'm loving Yavaris and Salvation has undeniably its uses too.

Both the GSD2 and Raider2 are situationally useful - the former as an anti-fighter platform and the later as a ion cannon platform.

The VSD2 is still a dominant force on the battle field. Losing 1 Red / 1 Blue vs an ISD2 front arc for 35 less points, capable of being built in many different ways. Literally the only thing it is missing out on is a Defensive Retrofit slot from going from "good" to "exceptional".

You know how much I respect your opinion, but I really have to disagree on the VSD 2: just have a look at the lists we used for the team tournament, how many do you see? Plus, on that 35 points you should also include the increased manouverability of a ISD 2 over a VSD 2, the added defensive retrofit, 1 more squadron value and 3 hull. That's a LOT of utility missing, and I'd gladly pay 35 points for it.

As for GSD 2, I don't really like it, but you guys may have a point. Still, if we're talking competitive play, how many have you seen in your carreer?

you don't really touch on squadrons.

Rebels - A-Wings, A few Aces but mostly Jan Orrs

Imperials - Firesprays, Interceptors, Fighters, Majority of our Aces (Rhymer anyone)

What imperials "lack" in ship options they make up with squadrons.

Imperials are very predictable. They have huge front arcs and big shields, they want to joust.... that's their best strategy. Turns out, they are also VERY GOOD at it.

So if imperials want to joust the ISD is the best choice, now you can either go with some squadrons or demolisher. both have there merits. Raiders aren't great at Jousting and to be 100% honest the VSD is straight out shined by the ISD.

JJ had a lot of success with a GSD-2 in the team tournament, although his list is definetely on the high-skill cap side. Viable IMO, and I think it might become more so in wave three.

I'm not a huge fan of the VSD-2 either. If you really want to spend 12 points to have blue range, I'd rather add dominator to a VSD-1 for situational upside. If there is ever a way to get this thing to speed three however...look out.

I think you hit the nail on the head in your OP.

Nebs and MC30s become a lot more viable with their titles. Imp ships bar Demo and Avenger just dont have the same potency.

I think you hit the nail on the head in your OP.

Nebs and MC30s become a lot more viable with their titles. Imp ships bar Demo and Avenger just dont have the same potency.

Don't forget Relentless. 3 points to make the ISD effectively command 2 is tremendous utility. Avenger is good but requires some real set up. Relentless has value in every game its in. Instigator is also a good title that is worth its points.

Aside from that though, I would agree that the rebels, on the whole, have better titles.

Rebels tend to have better titles and better aces but Imperials seem to have better synergies, arguable better admirals, and better squadrons. Also a base ship vs base ship the imperial ship is almost better in 1 way or another. The rebels seem to be very good at running super solo esqe builds with titles. They are rebels, they arent a huge military force with doctrines and training they are guerrilla fighters. So yes their totally customized ships and titles may be better because per design they don't have a butt load of synergies because thats not how they work.

The imperials are a military force with proper training, funding, and resources. Its why there fleets can be a bit more synergistic and work together as 1 force because its effectively going to be one force. its like when our Air Force support our ground troops in real conflicts, where our enemies maybe don't have an air force...

I wish I could disagree on this one because I'm overall a believer in the ability to configure most ships/squadrons into a useful build in Armada but there are definitely some red-headed stepchildren in the Imperial fleet. I'll explain why I'm underwhelmed by 3 of them, what you can still use them for right now, and what kinds of upgrades might make me change my mind in the future:

Victory-II:

Overpriced for upgrading black dice to blue dice and retains the speed/maneuver issues of the more cost-effective VSD-I. I legitimately struggle to find a use for VSD-IIs. Back in wave one they were the best chassis for a heavy gunship build but nowadays ISD-IIs are much better recipients for the same kinds of upgrades and fulfill the role better.

Possible uses:

• If you're trying for a janky "eat all the tokens" fleet, they're probably the most cost-effective means of bringing NK-7 Ion Cannons + Intel Officers, as they'll roll well enough once they get close enough to tempt using tokens the Intel Officers are targeting.
• If you're trying for a janky Avenger alley-oop fleet, they're a much more durable ship(albeit much less maneuverable and slower) than a Raider-II for carrying the Overload Pulse.

What might the future hold?

• Any kind of offensive retrofit that improved maneuverability and/or speed and was designed with the VSD strongly in mind would help. I'd still prefer VSD-Is with that upgrade, though.
• Any kind of ion cannon upgrade that allowed you to channel an unused blue dice into a speed/maneuver benefit (kind of a reverse Turbolaser Reroute Circuits of sorts) would help the VSD-II specifically, but might be seen more on ISDs if the wording wasn't solid enough (example: if at least one of your attacks this turn did not include blue dice, you may add one click of yaw to a "-" (no click) segment of your maneuver chart OR move an additional 1 movement segment straight ahead at the end of a speed 1 or speed 2 maneuver).
• An ion cannon upgrade that gave a reasonable damage buff (either a +dice upgrade or something like Turbolaser Reroute Circuits, which affects dice) would find a welcome home on a VSD-II. The problem then would become "why not on an ISD-II or Raider-II?"

Gladiator-II:

Back in wave one, you could make a good argument for the Gladiator-II using the Sensor Team upgrade to pitch a blank black dice to turn the red into an Accuracy result. The extra flak dice was occasionally helpful. The problem nowadays is Ordnance Experts are far and away the best weapon team for Gladiators and so the Gladiator-I's pure black dice broadsides are an asset to the Gladiator-I in its primary mission of hunting down and bullying small and medium ships (and with the right Clonisher upgrades, even some large ships). Raiders have also come along and serve as great support ships to Gladiators for several functions, one of which is pouring flak into enemy squadrons. With all of these changes, Gladiator-IIs just don't really compete for a spot in a competitive fleet much any more.

Possible uses:

• You can run a Gladiator-II Demolisher as a kind of janky anti-squadron ship with Ruthless Strategists - get two separate arc shots (one pre-move, one post-move) on enemy squadrons with a pair of 2 blue dice + Ruthless Strategist pings to clear up some squadrons. The problem being that Raiders can achieve something similar if necessary (Raider-II + Ruthless + Impetuous) for less points and Demolisher itself is a superlative anti-ship title, so wasting your effort/weapon crew slots on handling squadrons is usually under-utilizing Demolisher.
• You could try Gladiator-IIs alongside Raider-Is with no squadrons, hoping that their flak would be sufficient. I don't think it would be, honestly, but you can certainly try.

What might the future hold?

• Once wave 3 comes out, flotillas may be enough of an issue to see a return to Gladiator-IIs with Sensor Teams to handle the Scatter tokens. I'm not sold on that, however, as Intel Officers on Gladiator-Is would achieve a similar result and be of greater benefit against other ships.
• Any kind of support crew or weapons team that allowed you to spend red dice for specific effects would definitely give me cause to reexamine Gladiator-IIs. The main issue is with overall game balance, Rebels would likely be able to break such an upgrade. It would need to be something that synergized well with black dice, in which case you'd see it on MC30s and Gladiators most likely. Something like "Target specialists (weapon team): spend a red dice to flip one other dice to any side with a crit." This would potentially be worth running over Ordnance Experts for the sake of reliable black crits without needing to Screed (for Imperials). Dodonna would love it for sure .

Raider-II:

The problem with the Raider-II in my mind is it shares the same fundamental pitfalls as the Raider-I: its defense token suite is designed to keep it alive at long range but its dice suite is designed to be utilized at medium to short range. The Raider-I, however, packs a bigger punch at short range (thanks to 2 black/2 blue in the front rather than 1 black/3 blue) and can take some strong Ordnance upgrades. The Raider-II has a more varied flak dice assortment (1 blue/1 black vs 2 black) but I've only occasionally found the Raider-II's flak superior to the Raider-I's - being able to get big value from Ordnance Experts on the Raider-I has been able to crucially affect the squadron minigame for me, but the Raider-II's plinking is not as effective, even if you will get in the occasional medium ranged single blue attack you couldn't have got with the Raider-I. For what it's worth, though, I think Raider-IIs are the least red-headed of the 3 stepchildren I'm discussing.

Possible uses:

• The Overload Pulse carrier in a janky Avenger alley-oop fleet. You can use Overload Pulse on a Raider-II even without Avenger (hoping to activate the Raider-II earlier to make subsequent attacks from your heavy hitters very damaging to enemy defense tokens), of course; the problem I have here is it's a combo and it can be difficult to set up correctly. There are a tremendous number of variables to consider based on positioning, range, and activation order of both fleets. It seems generally better to simply use equivalent points on a Raider-I (or lightly upgraded Gladiator) that simply punches hard enough to force the defense token spending anyways.
• NK-7 Ion Cannon spam. The problem here is the Raider-IIs themselves don't really force defense tokens to be spent so they're not a great compliment with Intel Officers. You can nibble defense tokens to death on medium to large ships but it requires consistent pressure from numerous Raider-IIs with NK-7s and it has never felt worth the considerable points expenditure to me. If NK-7s could choose the defense token that got zapped (like Nym does), I'd feel differently.
• SW7s. This is the "Raider-lite" build that I've used on occasion. You can hang out in medium range to avoid the more high-risk high-reward element of the short-ranged Raider-Is and Concentrate Fire when possible. Under ideal circumstances at medium range, that's 3 damage coming from the front and 2 from the side arc (Concentrate Fire) while double arcing. The upside of SW7s here is that they're very resilient against Evade tokens (as the blue dice get rerolled to a damage no matter what - the best your opponent can do is change a crit damage to a non-crit damage) and the damage amounts come in packets that aren't great to use Brace or Redirect against (Brace to save 1 damage, Redirect feels iffy when bigger problems may be coming up later). You keep your Raider-II in the safer medium range and it's less prone to exploding. Hopefully. Of all the Raider-II configurations, this is the one I like the best. It's like a CR90B with some teeth if you get too close and has great maneuverability at speeds 1 and 2 to keep harasing.
• Ruthless Strategists + Impetuous. You can start proccing Ruthless Strategists earlier and from greater comfort with this setup. I think this would work best with a Raider-II that's escorting a TIE Bomber cloud which will have lots of spare HP but not a lot of time to waste dealing with fighter squadrons. If you can safely get into short range, let them have it with blue + black + Ruthless to get the damage to pile up.

What might the future hold?

• Agent Kallus for flakking aces. While I'm excited about trying him out with a Raider-I+Impetuous, you can get a lot of damage on character ace squadrons using a Raider-II and perhaps more reliably due to the blue dice. Ruthless Strategists + Impetuous + Kallus = flak for a blue + black + 1 Ruthless damage at least twice per turn (three times if the unlucky character ace is in two arcs). That should make Jan Ors extremely sad.
• Any kind of +dice or +damage ion cannon upgrade. I don't think anyone's expecting a blue version of Expanded Launchers, but something more modest and less points would be appreciated. The SW7s would still be a reliable amount of moderate damage, though.
• Raiders in general seem to be well-positioned for hunting down flotillas due to their compliment of blue dice and high maximum speed. Flotillas themselves don't seem capable of meaningfully fighting back (which Raiders love, and is normally a problem for them). Raider-IIs in particular have enough blue dice to pretty reliably lock down the scatter token on flotillas and thus may have a new niche compared to the Raider-I once wave three arrives.

I'd also like to add that maybe you disagree. Maybe you love running a (whatever I don't like). That's okay. I'm not saying any of those three ship variants loses you the game. I just struggle to find a good role for them that feels worth the points to me when I'm building a competitive fleet.

good stuff

Pleased to see you share my feelings, even tho you put them in a much more thoughtful and reasonable way than my "not viable, it sucks".

I particularly liked the "what might the future hold" sections, as they are full of brilliant ideas. However, I think that the majority of the aforementioned problems won't be solved in wave 3, and maybe not even in wave 4, because of the sheer number of new upgrades that would be needed.

Both the GSD2 and Raider2 are situationally useful - the former as an anti-fighter platform and the later as a ion cannon platform.

The VSD2 is still a dominant force on the battle field. Losing 1 Red / 1 Blue vs an ISD2 front arc for 35 less points, capable of being built in many different ways. Literally the only thing it is missing out on is a Defensive Retrofit slot from going from "good" to "exceptional".

You know how much I respect your opinion, but I really have to disagree on the VSD 2: just have a look at the lists we used for the team tournament, how many do you see? Plus, on that 35 points you should also include the increased manouverability of a ISD 2 over a VSD 2, the added defensive retrofit, 1 more squadron value and 3 hull. That's a LOT of utility missing, and I'd gladly pay 35 points for it.

As for GSD 2, I don't really like it, but you guys may have a point. Still, if we're talking competitive play, how many have you seen in your carreer?

No worries about disagreeing with me. If I am right 1/2 the time I post about what is good and what isn't, I am happy.

I Disagree.

Not on the specifics, but on one of the seemingly assumed Variables:

Making a ship viable because of a single Title doesn't make a Ship Viable. It makes the title Viable.

A Gladiator-II is just as Viable as a Demolisher as a Gladiator-I is... Because of that Accuracy Potential. Demolisher makes it just as viable. You may not see it anywhere, but I do. And a lockdown Brace (Or Redirect on an AF) is just as deadly as an Intel officer. Quite often more so, when you're doing both.

I just feel that if a Title makes things Viable, then your weighting needs to be adjusted... Either by recognising that Raiders are Viable due to Titles, or Nebulon-Bs are not Viable because Titles don't count... When was the last time you saw a Neb-B Support Yavaris, or a Neb-B Escort Salvation? Or Simply a Redemption? Or Neb-Bs without Titles outside of an All Neb-B List?

I just think some assumptions are off in the initial posting, that's all...

I don't neccessarily disagree with most of the content... Only on that assumption. I feel there's no general imbalance, because yes, the Imperials have less options - but their options are inherently easier to use in the first place.

I Disagree.

Not on the specifics, but on one of the seemingly assumed Variables:

Making a ship viable because of a single Title doesn't make a Ship Viable. It makes the title Viable.

A Gladiator-II is just as Viable as a Demolisher as a Gladiator-I is... Because of that Accuracy Potential. Demolisher makes it just as viable. You may not see it anywhere, but I do. And a lockdown Brace (Or Redirect on an AF) is just as deadly as an Intel officer. Quite often more so, when you're doing both.

I just feel that if a Title makes things Viable, then your weighting needs to be adjusted... Either by recognising that Raiders are Viable due to Titles, or Nebulon-Bs are not Viable because Titles don't count... When was the last time you saw a Neb-B Support Yavaris, or a Neb-B Escort Salvation? Or Simply a Redemption? Or Neb-Bs without Titles outside of an All Neb-B List?

I just think some assumptions are off in the initial posting, that's all...

I don't neccessarily disagree with most of the content... Only on that assumption. I feel there's no general imbalance, because yes, the Imperials have less options - but their options are inherently easier to use in the first place.

You definitely have a point. Yes, ship titles play a big role in defining what the ship will be like and how it's meant to fly, and while most rebels titles have their uses, not every imperial title does the same. In fact, I'd say that the "good" imperial titles are Relentless, Demolisher, Insidious (yes, I love insidious) and instigator, and that's about it.

However my assumptions are based on the fact that you can't field a title without its ship, so a ship becomes good or bad based on its titles too. Just think of this: would the CR90a be as appreciated as it is if it couldn't equip TRC? Still, the potential to equip them is what makes it so good and what you pick it up for.

I Disagree.

Not on the specifics, but on one of the seemingly assumed Variables:

Making a ship viable because of a single Title doesn't make a Ship Viable. It makes the title Viable.

A Gladiator-II is just as Viable as a Demolisher as a Gladiator-I is... Because of that Accuracy Potential. Demolisher makes it just as viable. You may not see it anywhere, but I do. And a lockdown Brace (Or Redirect on an AF) is just as deadly as an Intel officer. Quite often more so, when you're doing both.

I just feel that if a Title makes things Viable, then your weighting needs to be adjusted... Either by recognising that Raiders are Viable due to Titles, or Nebulon-Bs are not Viable because Titles don't count... When was the last time you saw a Neb-B Support Yavaris, or a Neb-B Escort Salvation? Or Simply a Redemption? Or Neb-Bs without Titles outside of an All Neb-B List?

I just think some assumptions are off in the initial posting, that's all...

I don't neccessarily disagree with most of the content... Only on that assumption. I feel there's no general imbalance, because yes, the Imperials have less options - but their options are inherently easier to use in the first place.

You definitely have a point. Yes, ship titles play a big role in defining what the ship will be like and how it's meant to fly, and while most rebels titles have their uses, not every imperial title does the same. In fact, I'd say that the "good" imperial titles are Relentless, Demolisher, Insidious (yes, I love insidious) and instigator, and that's about it.

However my assumptions are based on the fact that you can't field a title without its ship, so a ship becomes good or bad based on its titles too. Just think of this: would the CR90a be as appreciated as it is if it couldn't equip TRC? Still, the potential to equip them is what makes it so good and what you pick it up for.

Then I would argue that Both Raiders and Both Gladiators are certainly Useful based on that assessment.

I see Impetuous as much as I see Instigator... In fact, I see both Impetuous and Instigator more than Insidious...

So perhaps then, that's another point of disagreement...

The only ship I struggle to see out there is the Victory-II... But honestly, I see the Victory-II as much as I see the Assault MonCal... As much as I see the AFMK-IIA... As much as I see the Torpedo Variant MC30...

... and that is, I see it when I field it

Everything else is out there.

But of course, we're breaking down to Meta Differences here again... My Meta is not your Meta...

So perhaps we should define the Meta in which these assumptions are being made? because I figure if that was done at least, I'd have fewer-to-no objections... because its defined

Making a ship viable because of a single Title doesn't make a Ship Viable. It makes the title Viable.

I feel like you're splitting hairs here. If a ship can hit the table and be a good value for its points, then it's competitive. Viable is a really vague word (admittedly first used by the OP). If a ship can get a job done but isn't the most effective use of points for doing that job, it may be "viable" (it did its job) but I'm not convinced it's "competitive" (did the best you could for the job for the points).

Some ships do substantially better with titles (I'd argue MC80s, MC30s, Nebulon-Bs, and the infamous Demolisher Gladiator, etc.) but a title is still an upgrade card. ISD-IIs do better with Gunnery Teams but nobody has made the claim that the Gunnery Team is what makes the ISD-II viable.

A Gladiator-II is just as Viable as a Demolisher as a Gladiator-I is... Because of that Accuracy Potential. Demolisher makes it just as viable. You may not see it anywhere, but I do. And a lockdown Brace (Or Redirect on an AF) is just as deadly as an Intel officer. Quite often more so, when you're doing both.

I disagree. You've got a 1/8 chance of rolling an Accuracy on the side arcs of a Gladiator-II. So one in every 8 attacks it will happen. Otherwise, a red die does 0.75 average damage compared to a black die's 1. With Ordnance Experts, black dice go up to 1.25 average damage (rerolling blanks) and those black dice can trigger black critical effects that do more damage. The red dice at that point is mostly just useful as fodder for Screed, assuming he's your commander, but a black dice would've sufficed just the same and may have made Screeding unnecessary (saving it for the front arc of a Gladiator). The red dice seems to be there mostly for Sensor Team shenanigans (as they come bundled with the Gladiator), but nowadays Ordnance Experts with a Gladiator-I produce a lot of end damage(post-Brace) that is still equivalent or superior to the old-school wave one Sensor Teams combination but at a lower cost.

Even without the Sensor Teams combo and outfitted identically, I don't like the idea of paying 6 points more for +1 blue flak dice I won't use much, a 0.5 point reduction in broadsides damage, and a reduction in black crit chance in return for a 12.5% chance of getting an Accuracy result (which is sometimes great and sometimes ECMed away). If Gladiator-Is and Gladiator-IIs had the same cost I'd consider it an interesting tradeoff for one versus the other, but for 6 points I've just never been impressed.

I feel there's no general imbalance, because yes, the Imperials have less options - but their options are inherently easier to use in the first place.

I'm going to disagree here as well. In new games, Imperials are easier to use (point sharp end of triangle at problem, move towards problem, shoot problem) but once Rebels learn not to engage Imperials the way they want it evens out. I continue to hear from Imperial players (here and in real life) that VSDs and Raiders are garbage and aren't worth including because they're too hard to use. They're both harder ships to use well. If Imperial options are inherently easier to use, I don't believe we'd see this kind of perspective.

For what it's worth, I think the Rebels have a similar problem with the MC80 Assault Frigate and Assault Frigate MkIIA being non-great options overall. I've seen every other Rebel ship type used well in a fashion where I couldn't conceive of a superior points use for a similar end effect, but those two are a stretch. I'll make a similar comment there as I did on the Gladiator-I vs. Gladiator-II above - if they were the same (or very similar) in points cost, I think it would be more of a choice. Spending 8-9 more points in a situation where you're making a trade-off in the exchange (less Squadrons, swapped dice types, etc.) just never feels like a great buy.

Which I feel is why we'll always have disagreements... Such Nebulous Terms...

Scientific, we are not

Lots of good thoughts here gents. I'll add my two cents. I loved the Vic 2 back in Wave 1 (I won the Wave 1 send off tourney on Vassal with 3 of them), but now with wave 2, I have a hard time justifying the extra points, for what usually results in less damage.

Raider 2, don't use it much, because I prefer the AS of the raider 1, and the extra damage potential as well. However, I agree with Snapafist, as I'm really excited to run a Ruthless Strategist, Impetuous, Kallus, raider 2. That extra range for Ruthless is tasty, and it along with Milthel, will straight up murder intel squadrons.

Glad 2. This is a ship I'm liking more and more. The increased AA is really handy. Although you do lose damage potential, though if you are running Screed the red die just becomes fodder for that. I recently used a build with Ruthless Strategist on my flagship Glad 2. The ship was an escort (due to being a flaghip, and having a lower damage potential), and not meant to do much brawling unless the enemy got to close or an opportunity presented itself. I think the Raider 2 would have worked just as well in the anti-squadron role, but I wanted the extra ship hitting power, and survivability for my flagship.

more good stuff

Very good points again, actually it's almost exactly how I feel too. Please feel free to humiliate my goofy attempts at explaining my stance on imp ships whenever.

I dont think your judgement is very objective. Both GSD2s as well as VSD2s have their uses and definitely do not blatantly suck. They see use in playlists, even though they are not the most competitive ships in the fleet.

Your judgement on the rebel ships seems much more forgiving, for example the CR90b is described as "good and viable", yet it clearly is taken lesser in games when compared to the A variant. Same for the Neb B, it is a viable ship but has its drawbacks and does not play a big roll in the latest games I plaid - token Yavaris from time to time, that is it.

Following your rating scale, I would say Imps have 3 good choices (ISD I+II, GSD I), 4 average choices (both VSDs, GSD II, raider I). The raider II is the black swan so far, and definitely has to find a niche to see play.

Nebulon-Bs have been in nearly every tournament winning rebel list I've seen. Both varieties. They are extremely good with the titles. Even Redemption.

I dont think your judgement is very objective. Both GSD2s as well as VSD2s have their uses and definitely do not blatantly suck. They see use in playlists, even though they are not the most competitive ships in the fleet.

Your judgement on the rebel ships seems much more forgiving, for example the CR90b is described as "good and viable", yet it clearly is taken lesser in games when compared to the A variant. Same for the Neb B, it is a viable ship but has its drawbacks and does not play a big roll in the latest games I plaid - token Yavaris from time to time, that is it.

Following your rating scale, I would say Imps have 3 good choices (ISD I+II, GSD I), 4 average choices (both VSDs, GSD II, raider I). The raider II is the black swan so far, and definitely has to find a niche to see play.

Nebulon-Bs have been in nearly every tournament winning rebel list I've seen. Both varieties. They are extremely good with the titles. Even Redemption.

Never argued that they are not viable, though I yet have to see a Redemption myself ;-) But as Drasnighta stated, its the titles that make Yavaris and Salvation viable, the naked ship itself is okay at best. In short, I was disagreeing with OPs statement that GSD II and VSD II "suck", and took his statement regarding Nebs and CR90s as a comparison.

Demolisher is the major redemption of the gladiator - without demo you are stuck with only ever being able to shoot someone who ended their turn in your short range firing arc (or if you have activation advantage one way or the other)

Im going to give Raider IIs a try and follow similar logic as my ISD 2 - ie that extra bit of range lets me fly into position to threaten but not over commit. Its pretty easy for most ships to escape a black dice front arc. Blue dice just have that slightly bigger area of influence. That's the theory anyway!

Demolisher is the major redemption of the gladiator - without demo you are stuck with only ever being able to shoot someone who ended their turn in your short range firing arc (or if you have activation advantage one way or the other)

I'm not going to contest that Demolisher is an extremely good (and convtroversial!) title, but I think you're selling other Gladiators short. Provided your list supports them well (as you mentioned, activation advantage is important) they can do some heavy lifting. I don't think they're nearly as dependent on titles as, say, MC80s or Nebulon-Bs are.

Im going to give Raider IIs a try and follow similar logic as my ISD 2 - ie that extra bit of range lets me fly into position to threaten but not over commit. Its pretty easy for most ships to escape a black dice front arc. Blue dice just have that slightly bigger area of influence. That's the theory anyway!

Raider-IIs (my preference again being with SW7s) are probably the best way to dip your toes into learning to use Raiders well. They're Raiders with training wheels, basically - not nearly so dangerous to the rider/pilot but also not really as capable of doing anything exemplary.