I enjoy the concepts.

But both of those presented are vastly better than (or at least equal to) a Victory in almost every way, with the singular exception of Hull... For a Victory Price.

Upgrade Availability and Combinations need to be more accounted for, I think personally... I mean, you put those out there, and you would kill the Victory in every way, shape and form. What's the point of it anymore?

It needs to suppliment what we have with a combination thats new and fresh - but there needs to be a reason to go back to the old one - and I'm not saying you shouldn't be able ot hae that layout or that combination of upgrades.... but it shouldn't be cheap .

25 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I enjoy the concepts.

But both of those presented are vastly better than (or at least equal to) a Victory in almost every way, with the singular exception of Hull... For a Victory Price.

Upgrade Availability and Combinations need to be more accounted for, I think personally... I mean, you put those out there, and you would kill the Victory in every way, shape and form. What's the point of it anymore?

It needs to suppliment what we have with a combination thats new and fresh - but there needs to be a reason to go back to the old one - and I'm not saying you shouldn't be able ot hae that layout or that combination of upgrades.... but it shouldn't be cheap .

Fair enough this is a revised version with a unique upgrade slot that could be a dedicated AA or squadron support slot.

No.

3 blue as.

Isd-2 level reds.

Speed 3.

5 squad.

79 pts.

Something is wrong here. Very wrong.

We've talked about how the Imperial and Rebel releases "mirror" each other in many ways in some other threads - I think an Imperial Venator could mirror the Liberty , in that it would be a ship for one faction that feels like its lifting some of its design philosophy from the other faction.

By which I mean that I'd support it being something of an Imperial take on the MC-80 Home One : Big, broadside-ey, and able to build as heavy squadron support.

Stronger side arcs (like the ILC), weaker front arc, good to great squadron value, and at least one version having two offensive retrofit slots. Where the Liberty gives the Rebels their own angry sort-of-triangle that shoots death from its front arc (and can do so amazingly well with at least one title), have the Venator give the Empire their own sort-of-space-pickle that shoots some death of its own and gives fantastic support to squadrons (and can do so even better with at least one title).

Make it expensive, slow, and not as well rounded as an ISD. Make it the ship that Imperial players bring when they want to play more like the Rebels.

33 minutes ago, Greatfrito said:

We've talked about how the Imperial and Rebel releases "mirror" each other in many ways in some other threads - I think an Imperial Venator could mirror the Liberty , in that it would be a ship for one faction that feels like its lifting some of its design philosophy from the other faction.

By which I mean that I'd support it being something of an Imperial take on the MC-80 Home One : Big, broadside-ey, and able to build as heavy squadron support.

Stronger side arcs (like the ILC), weaker front arc, good to great squadron value, and at least one version having two offensive retrofit slots. Where the Liberty gives the Rebels their own angry sort-of-triangle that shoots death from its front arc (and can do so amazingly well with at least one title), have the Venator give the Empire their own sort-of-space-pickle that shoots some death of its own and gives fantastic support to squadrons (and can do so even better with at least one title).

Make it expensive, slow, and not as well rounded as an ISD. Make it the ship that Imperial players bring when they want to play more like the Rebels.

this is precicely what the venator should be, an imperial take on a rebel classic. I dont see how FFG can ignore the venator now that the community has rallied arround it.

Agreed. FFG you've been informed. Make it happen. We want venators.

9 hours ago, Ell said:

Suspiciously... They changed the pic announcing the wave 5 release in Spanish, and now it shows this:

Instead of this:

So, my bet is this pic is set for a future release...

http://www.edgeent.com/noticias/articulo/ganar_batallas_no_siempre_da_la_victoria_en_la_guerra

It's looking to me like they are gonna chicken out on the Venator and use the Quasar.

So I took the comments and seriously thought about this....

I want an Imperial Yavaris....

Notice the shields compensate for the weaker hull...I'm strongly debating making it hull 6 actually! You can sink ALOT of points into this bird...but it'd be a risk.

57 minutes ago, Gottmituns205 said:

It's looking to me like they are gonna chicken out on the Venator and use the Quasar.

So I took the comments and seriously thought about this....

I want an Imperial Yavaris....

Notice the shields compensate for the weaker hull...I'm strongly debating making it hull 6 actually! You can sink ALOT of points into this bird...but it'd be a risk.

one more click at speed 2 on the 1st joint and this would be PERFECT

I still feel its undercosted (but of course, that's me).

Squadron 4 Base needs to be pointed more, especially with Double Offensive Retro... I mean, 6 Squads and being able to activate them at Long Range.... Thats one hell of a Carrier...

And those Broadsides, my AFMK-IIs are jealous.....

What's its downside, compared to a Victory?

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

I still feel its undercosted (but of course, that's me).

Squadron 4 Base needs to be pointed more, especially with Double Offensive Retro... I mean, 6 Squads and being able to activate them at Long Range.... Thats one hell of a Carrier...

And those Broadsides, my AFMK-IIs are jealous.....

What's its downside, compared to a Victory?

Totally agree...way to cheap for those stats. The victory would have never been created if the Venator had these stats! My thought is that you start with a Vic and then add and subtract from there. Obviously it would have more squadron activations, but the weapons need to be the same or worse then the Vic. They weapons could be in different arcs, but I don't think you can make it both an amazing squadron pusher AND have it throw a ton of dice.

I feel like many of us love the Venator from the Clone Wars TV show and are forgetting that it needs to be equal to or worse then a Vic. The last card above has it pushing ISD level of dice for almost 40 points less. That would break the game...in my opinion.

The hull is weaker due to the flight deck, but the upgrades and the ability to dominate the squadron meta and still fight at range is the compensation. The shields are there to balance things out a little bit...

80 points is already a big investment, to make this a true carrier monster, you're at Imperial star destroyer levels and your fleet suffers elsewhere.

30 minutes ago, mcworrell said:

Totally agree...way to cheap for those stats. The victory would have never been created if the Venator had these stats! My thought is that you start with a Vic and then add and subtract from there. Obviously it would have more squadron activations, but the weapons need to be the same or worse then the Vic. They weapons could be in different arcs, but I don't think you can make it both an amazing squadron pusher AND have it throw a ton of dice.

I feel like many of us love the Venator from the Clone Wars TV show and are forgetting that it needs to be equal to or worse then a Vic. The last card above has it pushing ISD level of dice for almost 40 points less. That would break the game...in my opinion.

Actually, the Victory was created first and they were used as heavy support ships for the Venators in fleet actions. The Venator should be better in stats to the Victory, but more expensive. Not as expensive as an ISD 1, but somewhere in the 90's-100's for sure.

16 minutes ago, idiewell said:

Actually, the Victory was created first and they were used as heavy support ships for the Venators in fleet actions. The Venator should be better in stats to the Victory, but more expensive. Not as expensive as an ISD 1, but somewhere in the 90's-100's for sure.

IDK how accurate it is but star wars wiki says Venators were 22 year BBY and Victorys were 20 year BBY. So venators came first.

meh depends on what's "canon" at the moment. If they've changed that, then apologies of course.

still think it needs 3 anti squadron from those 50 odd point defense lasers. I think iv'e made a semi fair Venator, might be slightly too cheap

17 minutes ago, idiewell said:

meh depends on what's "canon" at the moment. If they've changed that, then apologies of course.

I like the quotes around Canon. It is rather fluid isn't it...

3 blue AA dice is just insane. If you have to have 3, make it a blue and 2 black. That limits the area in which it can 1- shot fighters. Personally, I think that it would be better off with 2 blue. The dice and arcs are good - right on point, I think. It might be too maneuverable at speed 3, though. That's isd maneuverability there. I'd drop it to speed 2 and swap the turbolaser for a support team. And give it 9 hull. 7 is too small for a large base ship - and the Venator certainly needs to be large.

5 minutes ago, Zach1996 said:

still think it needs 3 anti squadron from those 50 odd point defense lasers. I think iv'e made a semi fair Venator, might be slightly too cheap

I like it over all. Nice job. Idk about 3 blue. Maybe 2 black. Give you a higher chance per dice but limits the max possible. I'd put some blue in the armament somewhere but not sure where. I like the 7 hull and the menuvers you chose. Maybe I'll take a crack at it tomorrow...

I freely admit.

I'm legitimately concerned about something that can throw seven flight controlled TIE Interceptors every turn , for less than the price of a Naked ISD-II...... And still have an offensive slot free for Boosted Comms if it wants...

This is why mine has serious draw backs.

The dorsal flight deck = weak spot...hence the MUCH weaker armor and stronger shields. The front arc isn't great either, but recall it has a proton torpedo battery in the front. The side arcs is where the good stuff is...my ship is a flat out carrier.

7 minutes ago, Gottmituns205 said:

The dorsal flight deck = weak spot...hence the MUCH weaker armor and stronger shields. The front arc isn't great either, but recall it has a proton torpedo battery in the front. The side arcs is where the good stuff is...my ship is a flat out carrier.

You still give it 12 other shields and two redirects.

31 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I freely admit.

I'm legitimately concerned about something that can throw seven flight controlled TIE Interceptors every turn , for less than the price of a Naked ISD-II...... And still have an offensive slot free for Boosted Comms if it wants...

you have to remember an isd 1 compared to my design is slightly more maneuverable it has 2 more shields, 4 more hull pints, a contain token and puts out 12 dice from side and front arcs in comparison to the Venator which is putting out 8 dice from front and side. also the isd has two offensive retrofits, a weapons team slot and a squadron value of 4. so it can put out 6 flight controlled interceptors anyway and its 10pts different.

26 minutes ago, Arttemis said:

You still give it 12 other shields and two redirects.

36 minutes ago, Gottmituns205 said:

The dorsal flight deck = weak spot...hence the MUCH weaker armor and stronger shields. The front arc isn't great either, but recall it has a proton torpedo battery in the front. The side arcs is where the good stuff is...my ship is a flat out carrier.

i like the idea of having the hull at 6 and 4 sheilds

I'm not saying its wrong.

Just that I am legitimately concerned about it

I am a Rebel Player primarily, after all... And a Conservative one at that.