4 hours ago, xerpo said:

Besides all the cute brainstorming here, I completely agree with this guy. I could't see any game where late epV early epVI MC80s(ie) could face old ships from epII on like the venators. Every SS designed after that was meant to improve the Vclass or vary it someway to better. But definetely to take its place. Would not make any sense to me to see them on the table at the current timeline of armada. Maybe if FF come up with a completely new expansion with separatist and republic ships in a new clone wars campaign... but not now at all.

Pelta, CR90, GR-75s: all clone wars era

Gozanti, Arquitens, VSD: All clone wars era

so why is the Venator too old? Just because a replacement is rolled out does not mean every copy of the old equipment or ship instantly disappears.

For what it's worth, the cards shared earlier by GiledPallaeon were originally designed (and balanced) for Republic vs Separatist scenarios, which may shed some light on the choice of stats.

24 minutes ago, Chuntsinger said:

So this somewhat angers me. the venator, victory, and the ISD were around at 19 bby or rots. the venator served right up to jedi in limited roles. and as for clone wars era ships not being able to contend in the current meta, what the hell is an arquitens then!? Oh, wait. It's a clone wars ship. were the IDS and victory classes improvements on a venator, yes. they improved various funtions and the ISD replaced the venator, but the time frame of this game (original trilogy) does not make a venator inviable. simply read catalyst or tarkin for evidence. dont mean to offend anybody, but this is a topic near and dear to me. I will concede that a clone wars expantion or a new core set as such would be way cool, so that is a good idea and I thank you for it.

I wouldn't want a clone war faction or release. I agree with the rest though!

Most ships in the real world (I don't often use this argument because Star Wars physics is strange, but it works in this context) are built with 20+ year lifespans, minimum! It's all in how you upgrade, look at our aircraft carriers, some were commissioned in the 70's yet are still operating just fine, and despite their age, entirely capable of subjugating small European nations on their own.

Then there is the dreadnought problem, if Venators are to old for this game then dreadnoughts are antiques, and should NEVER see the table, the same goes for corellian corvettes, especially the Tantive IV!

As long as it's operational, and capable of deploying TIES, AT-STs and infantry to subjugate planets into Imperial service, it's welcome in the Imperial Navy!

19 hours ago, Green Knight said:

It's clearly not the Immobilizer.

It's clearly the Rebels Dictor. Which is clearly bigger than a VSD.

Yeah, shortly after I posted this I watched the scene where it is....abundantly clear that it is much bigger than an Arquitens.

I love existing Artwork




Is that a Rebel Ventaor being Shot by an ISD Halfway down the Right Hand Edge?

Yes. Yes it is.

11 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I love existing Artwork




Is that a Rebel Ventaor being Shot by an ISD Halfway down the Right Hand Edge?

Yes. Yes it is.

You know, I wasn't sold on it at first, but more of this stuff I look at, the more I'm really digging the Separatist ships with Rebel heraldry.

I foresee a tragic amount of money being spent at Mel's in my future...

2 hours ago, Chuntsinger said:

So this somewhat angers me. the venator, victory, and the ISD were around at 19 bby or rots. the venator served right up to jedi in limited roles. and as for clone wars era ships not being able to contend in the current meta, what the hell is an arquitens then!? Oh, wait. It's a clone wars ship. were the IDS and victory classes improvements on a venator, yes. they improved various funtions and the ISD replaced the venator, but the time frame of this game (original trilogy) does not make a venator inviable. simply read catalyst or tarkin for evidence. dont mean to offend anybody, but this is a topic near and dear to me. I will concede that a clone wars expantion or a new core set as such would be way cool, so that is a good idea and I thank you for it.

True the arquitens is a clone wars ship but they never developed an improvement for it, so it continued it service as light cruiser for the republic, and then for the empire. They focused on improving the heavy cruisers and "unifying" them into a single design for a specialized assembly line, thats why all of the new heavy cruisers of the empire look almost the same in shape and structure.
I can buy that there is still Vclass cruisers around the galaxy, maybe remains of fleets patroling outpost or pirate capital ships or whatever, but certanly not a ship that the glorious empire would take into a brand new powerful fleet when they invested so much in a new generation of heavy cruisers better than Venator-class.

You all say here that its main trait is the amount of fighters it could carry. The ISD improved this like 100 times better. And its current squadron value is 4 with all the imporvements for fighters such as offensive slots x2 and weapons. Suggesting squadron 5 for Vclass sounds nonsense to me.

Sure it could have place in armada, but not this way. Spitting 6 dices out of sideboards? cmon, its an old ship. An example to this is the Millenium falcon, cmon is the ******* fastest ship in the galaxy, Han Solo would ask chewie to tear your arms apart if you suggest otherwise, it made the kessel run in 12 parsecs. And it moves 3... because it is an old cargo ship.

Personally I would not include it if is not within the context of the clone wars timeline campaign. But if I would, it would be something between the Gladiator and the VSD in points and game balance.

3 minutes ago, xerpo said:

Sure it could have place in armada, but not this way. Spitting 6 dices out of sideboards? cmon, its an old ship. An example to this is the Millenium falcon, cmon is the ******* fastest ship in the galaxy, Han Solo would ask chewie to tear your arms apart if you suggest otherwise, it made the kessel run in 12 parsecs. And it moves 3... because it is an old cargo ship.

A CR90 has 3 dice out the front and an ISD has 8. Does that sound weird to you? How can a tiny ship possess 37.5% of the firepower of an ISD? And it has 2 shields, where as the ISD has 4. Does this mean the CR90 had incredible shields or that the ISD had weak ones?

The MC30 has 5 dice out the sides. The MC80, which is ~75m longer, has 6 dice out the sides. Why can't the Venator have 6? And it is "older" by 20 years in a technological stagnant galaxy. The only reason Venators would not be up to par with everything else is if it were not maintained.

More importantly, a 6 dice broad side ship would be a nice addition to the Empire. It would allow for another style of play, instead of driving face first into everything.

Also, a parsec is a measure of distance, not a measure of time.

"...ships in the Star Wars universe can't travel in straight lines while in hyperspace due to collisions with celestial objects. Thus, distance is an important factor in how quickly a ship can get from point A to point B. The Millennium Falcon ' s superior navigation computer allowed it to travel shorter distances between points and arrive faster."

So here is the "old ship" with superior technology.

In regards to the fighter complement, here is the Venator:

Alpha-3 Nimbus-class V-wing or V-19 Torrent starfighters (192)

ARC-170 starfighters (36)

Eta-2 Actis-class interceptors (192)

LAAT/i gunships (40)

And the ISD:

TIE Series starfighters (72)

Lambda-class shuttles (8)

Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)

Assault gunboats (6)

A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats

Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)

I'm actually surprise Wookiepedia says ISDs carried Skiprays.... I figured they would take Tie/B. Regardless, the Venator is the superior carrier here. It had 4 hangers I believe, where as the ISD has 2.

Wookiepedia also states the reason Venators are no longer used:

Eventually, more robust vessels such as the Imperator- and Tector-class became favored, and the Venator and its variants were phased out.[1] This was partially due to its over-reliance on starfighters, as it went against the prevailing Tarkin Doctrine and due to its prominent position in the Republic Navy, which the Empire attempted to distance itself from.

So there you have it. The Venator was the better carrier and the Empire wanted to get away from that.

BOOM!!! gimme that!! just what I wanted to see, thank you. as for the picture above, that was a venator, though I dont think it was rebel. the providence though.

1 minute ago, Chuntsinger said:

BOOM!!! gimme that!! just what I wanted to see, thank you. as for the picture above, that was a venator, though I dont think it was rebel. the providence though.

1) Its flying in the same direction (convoy) to the Providences.

2) Its flying perpendicular to the angle of Imperial Attack.

3) The Imperials are shooting it. (With their Green Turbolasers).

All signs point to it being the Aft End of a Rebel-Flagged Venator.

6 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

3) The Imperials are shooting it. (With their Green Turbolasers).

This isn't immediately apparent, but if you look closely that's definitely what's happening.

2 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

A CR90 has 3 dice out the front and an ISD has 8. Does that sound weird to you? How can a tiny ship possess 37.5% of the firepower of an ISD? And it has 2 shields, where as the ISD has 4. Does this mean the CR90 had incredible shields or that the ISD had weak ones?

The MC30 has 5 dice out the sides. The MC80, which is ~75m longer, has 6 dice out the sides. Why can't the Venator have 6? And it is "older" by 20 years in a technological stagnant galaxy. The only reason Venators would not be up to par with everything else is if it were not maintained.

More importantly, a 6 dice broad side ship would be a nice addition to the Empire. It would allow for another style of play, instead of driving face first into everything.

Also, a parsec is a measure of distance, not a measure of time.

"...ships in the Star Wars universe can't travel in straight lines while in hyperspace due to collisions with celestial objects. Thus, distance is an important factor in how quickly a ship can get from point A to point B. The Millennium Falcon ' s superior navigation computer allowed it to travel shorter distances between points and arrive faster."

So here is the "old ship" with superior technology.

In regards to the fighter complement, here is the Venator:

Alpha-3 Nimbus-class V-wing or V-19 Torrent starfighters (192)

ARC-170 starfighters (36)

Eta-2 Actis-class interceptors (192)

LAAT/i gunships (40)

And the ISD:

TIE Series starfighters (72)

Lambda-class shuttles (8)

Delta-class stormtrooper transports (15)

Assault gunboats (6)

A variable number of GAT-12 Skipray Blastboats

Gamma-class assault shuttle (1+)

I'm actually surprise Wookiepedia says ISDs carried Skiprays.... I figured they would take Tie/B. Regardless, the Venator is the superior carrier here. It had 4 hangers I believe, where as the ISD has 2.

Wookiepedia also states the reason Venators are no longer used:

Eventually, more robust vessels such as the Imperator- and Tector-class became favored, and the Venator and its variants were phased out.[1] This was partially due to its over-reliance on starfighters, as it went against the prevailing Tarkin Doctrine and due to its prominent position in the Republic Navy, which the Empire attempted to distance itself from.

So there you have it. The Venator was the better carrier and the Empire wanted to get away from that.

They did but only one squadron as imperial doctrine was fighter were for other fighters. Also why Imperial fighters were specialist until the Tie defender

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

1) Its flying in the same direction (convoy) to the Providences.

2) Its flying perpendicular to the angle of Imperial Attack.

3) The Imperials are shooting it. (With their Green Turbolasers).

All signs point to it being the Aft End of a Rebel-Flagged Venator.

They stole so much from the Imperial Navy I'm more than happy to accept this logic. I'll definitely wouldn't mind if this ship ended up on the Rebel side, I just want the ship. Same for the CIS fleet, though I really don't know of any instances of Imperial forces using those droid warships. I have faith in FFG to find a way to make it all work should they decide to go in that direction. At this point though I'll settle for someone leaking Wave 6.

Just now, GiledPallaeon said:

They stole so much from the Imperial Navy I'm more than happy to accept this logic. I'll definitely wouldn't mind if this ship ended up on the Rebel side, I just want the ship. Same for the CIS fleet, though I really don't know of any instances of Imperial forces used those droid warships. I have faith in FFG to find a way to make it all work should they decide to go in that direction. At this point though I'll settle for someone leaking Wave 6.

10-14 days, m'friend... GAMA Looms.

13 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

Errr... No it isn't.

Edit: also, dafuq is that stupid-looking thing in the middle...?

Apparently a Revenge class heavy carrier. I don't recognize most of these ships, and of the ones I do recognize, most are not great impressions. Allegiance in particular is pretty mangled.

31 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

Apparently a Revenge class heavy carrier. I don't recognize most of these ships, and of the ones I do recognize, most are not great impressions. Allegiance in particular is pretty mangled.

It seems the Revenge class is a fan made ship

I think the idea of it being "too old to serve" is nonsense...the more time goes by, the more the "missing pieces" between 3 and 4 get filled in...the more novels...the more comics...the more games show up with the endorsement of the mouse.

" However, at least one Venator -class was stationed at the Anthan Prime Orbital Dockyard a few months after Battle of Yavin . ^[12] "

One of the Darth Vader comics, has a Venator serving after the battle of Yavin.

I mean c'mon they threw in the space whale from empire at war...the Venator is a given because the Empire lacks:

a.) Cannon ships that can compete with the Rebel fleet

b.) A dedicated attack carrier that isn't made of glass (but not a jack of all trades cruiser like the imperial)

c.)A cannon ship the imperial fanboys are gonna buy in droves.

Unless they go trolling in legends for new kit, the Empire is practically out of different vessels...sure...First Order crap, an SSD, the light carrier...then what? The Venator and the Acclimator are going to happen, it's just a matter of when.

I think FFG throwing out the Arc 170 was a way for them to test the waters to see if Clone Wars stuff could work for the GCW, and so far there are no massive "BAN THIS CLONE WARS CRAP!" threads...

If anything, FFG is watching this thread, and the forum...seeing the word "VENATOR" pop up quite a bit...and they are seeing Dollar signs.

I would commit to buying 3 for a carrier force alone.

The Venator is no different from any other ship that was still useful to the Empire (arquitens, etc). I hope to see it in Armada.

On 02/03/2017 at 9:26 PM, Undeadguy said:

No, they are larger. Wookiepedia says the 8 main guns on a Venator are similar to the ones on an ISD.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Venator-class_Star_Destroyer/Legends

We don't know how powerful the 8 Venator turrets are compared to the 6 ISD-I ones (other two turrets were ion cannon) (the line " In terms of firepower, these weapons rivaled the main battery on the later Imperial I -class Star Destroyers " - is not sourced) - but The Essential Guide To Warfare (page 96, Venator entry) describes the Victory-class as "smaller but more heavily armed" than the Venator.

I agree the the Venator should and will be in Armada, but the thing I "worry" about is that it seems many people want it to be an Assult Frigate on steroids. What happens when it comes out and it isn't awesome at being a carrier and at attacking? What happens if it doesn't meet the expectations of its many fans? I could see them making it really good at one thing and just ok at the other, and I think there would be many people on these boards that would be outraged.

just my 2 cents. I think we will get it,but I don't think it will have everything that some people want it to have. It will have to be weak in some area to keep the game balanced. That is the key.

Larger dimensions != tougher hull

21 minutes ago, OgRib said:

Larger dimensions != tougher hull

Front half dedicated to hosting a large fighter compliment = weaker hull

I propose keeping one version strictly a carrier, with the other as a dedicated command ship, trading some of the carrier slots for TL's or Ion Cannons and a Defensive slot. Still not as powerful as a Victory in terms of firepower, but certainly better than the Imperial Light Cruiser.

Those looking for a powerful attack ship with strong broadsides, perhaps that can be the role of another Imperial ship, say the Vindicator-Class Cruiser?

Just a thought

27 minutes ago, idiewell said:

I propose keeping one version strictly a carrier, with the other as a dedicated command ship, trading some of the carrier slots for TL's or Ion Cannons and a Defensive slot. Still not as powerful as a Victory in terms of firepower, but certainly better than the Imperial Light Cruiser.

Those looking for a powerful attack ship with strong broadsides, perhaps that can be the role of another Imperial ship, say the Vindicator-Class Cruiser?

Just a thought

I could see it carrying like that, or what about a cheap large carrier with minimal upgrade slots for one, and another that is more expensive that you can deck out?

Normally i wouldn't put the words "large" and "cheap" together

Could be interesting though. A cheaper, no-frills with just carrier-useful slots and no extras, and a more specialist carrier that trades cost for extras.