This was my attempt to be as accurate as possible to the lore of this ship and being balanced as best as I can make it. I used quotes from Wookieepedia for reference when creating stats such as; " ...possessing powerful weaponry and being on par with the Victory-class, the Venator-class was designed with an additional starfighter carrier role in mind. Its hangars were far larger than those on other Star Destroyers like the Victory-class." This is why the Venator has nearly the same amount of total dice as the Victory I-class (aside from the extra black dice in the side arcs), and has Squadrons 5. The 3/3/1 Shield arrangement is because it has shields "roughly equivalent to that of a Victory I-class Star Destroyer." The below average Engineering value of 3 can be attributed to "being relatively less self-sufficient than other ships in the fleet, the Venator-class often relied upon supply lines to aid long-range campaigns." The hull value of 7 might seem low, but I feel it's fairly accurate because of the dorsal hanger being a exploitable weakness in the armor. The armament "...of a single Venator-class Star Destroyer consisted of eight DBY-827 heavy dual turbolaser turrets, two medium dual turbolaser cannons, fifty-two point-defense dual laser cannons or turbolasers , and four heavy proton torpedo tubes." That meant the Venator would have to be a Red/Black ship, and the 2 Red flak is based on the underlined portion of the quote (plus I thought it would be interesting to have another ship alongside the Quasar Fire II to have Red flak). Being "...fast enough to chase down blockade runners" it had to be able to go Speed 3. Overall I felt it was critically important not to have the Venator overshadow the Victory as they are sister ships in the lore.

The Imperial Patrol Refit is my non-Canon speculation of what the Empire would do with the ships to fit their new fleet doctrines. Like the Victory II-class it replaces the ordinance with more turbolasers and ion cannons to increase it's independence of supply depots. The Squadron value has been reduced by 1 and the Engineering value increased by 1 to represent some of the hangers being converted to extra storage space. The Offensive Refit has been swapped with a Defensive Refit to help the Venator preform long range patrols with little to no backup.

Obviously the Venator has been discussed many times on these forums, I just wanted to give my thoughts on this amazing ship as it is one of my favorites. I'd go as far as to say I had wished for the Venator before getting the Executor in Armada.

EDIT: I took a step back and realized that my stats were too much, and I have redone the Venator to hopefully better fit between the Victory I, Quasar Fire I and II, and the Imperial I.

Here's the Imperial Patrol Refit.

EDIT: Reduce the front arc to 2 Red 2 Blue, remove a Red dice from the sides, replace 1 of the Red flak dice with Blue. Change the Nav Chart and Hull Points to match the redone Venator, and increase the price to 95 points.

Not sure if those changes make this ship more balanced or if it went from OP to trash. Nothing really in Legends/Canon to go off of since the Venator line was discontinued after the Clone Wars.

While I agree on the stats and it's anti-squadron abilities, I think that if you look at pictures of the Venator the main heavy turbolaser turrets don't superfire.

Meaning they are not stacked on top of each other to shoot straight forward. So I think that if you were to replace the front arc with the side arcs and vice versa it would be more

movie accurate. It would also be nice to see an imperial ship that is a broadsider as apose to another front arc reliant ship.

Yeah i agree with almost all the stats, but it should really be a broadside ship with black dice at the front. (We dont know where the torpedo launchers are but im assuming they are at the front just like on the acclamator class) Also 7 hull is too few. It should have hull 9 in my opinion since it is over 300 m larger than the victory. ArmadaShipyards did it justice in my opinion, although the armaments on his version were more inspired by the TCW show and therefore more front-arc focused. But i really think this ship should be a broadsider as we clearly see it in that role in EP3. And Movie Depiction > Animated Series Depiction IMO. @DiabloAzul

Why would you even fly a VSD any more?

28 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

Why would you even fly a VSD any more?

Why would you fly one now? My VSD just collect dust and better used as desk top deco

45 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

Why would you even fly a VSD any more?

For the same reason it has been flown since wave 1. Because its a viable competitive option. Man seriously if this game ever dies it will be because of all the negativity in this community.

17 minutes ago, jpersons73 said:

Why would you fly one now? My VSD just collect dust and better used as desk top deco

And you would fly this similar but more expensive ship?

12 minutes ago, >kkj said:

For the same reason it has been flown since wave 1. Because its a viable competitive option. Man seriously if this game ever dies it will be because of all the negativity in this community.

No, i was just bluntly pointing out that its too similar to the VSD and will suffer the same fleet building issues it suffers currently. If it was a broadsider like you suggested earlier now that is workable.

Can you point out other examples of negativity in this community?

8 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

And you would fly this similar but more expensive ship?

No, i was just bluntly pointing out that its too similar to the VSD and will suffer the same fleet building issues it suffers currently. If it was a broadsider like you suggested earlier now that is workable.

Can you point out other examples of negativity in this community?

My mistake, i misunderstood you. All the complaints about some ships beeing unplayable (most the time concerning the victory), all the armada is dead bull and just some general unnecessary cries about things that are actually fine but just dont work the way some people want them to work.

4 hours ago, Darth Bane's Wrath said:

While I agree on the stats and it's anti-squadron abilities, I think that if you look at pictures of the Venator the main heavy turbolaser turrets don't superfire.

Meaning they are not stacked on top of each other to shoot straight forward. So I think that if you were to replace the front arc with the side arcs and vice versa it would be more

movie accurate. It would also be nice to see an imperial ship that is a broadsider as apose to another front arc reliant ship.

1 hour ago, Irokenics said:

Why would you even fly a VSD any more?

2 hours ago, >kkj said:

Yeah i agree with almost all the stats, but it should really be a broadside ship with black dice at the front. (We dont know where the torpedo launchers are but im assuming they are at the front just like on the acclamator class) Also 7 hull is too few. It should have hull 9 in my opinion since it is over 300 m larger than the victory. ArmadaShipyards did it justice in my opinion, although the armaments on his version were more inspired by the TCW show and therefore more front-arc focused. But i really think this ship should be a broadsider as we clearly see it in that role in EP3. And Movie Depiction > Animated Series Depiction IMO. @DiabloAzul

Star Destroyers design philosophy is to concentrate firepower forwards including the Venator. The heaviest guns on most Star Destroyers being positioned on each side of the bridge tower was always a bit of a contradiction. I believe that the Invisible Hand broadside scene was depicting the Venator's proton torpedo launchers but I could be wrong.

Pricing this ship is tricky, because I don't want the Victory to be unattractive but if the price was 90+ points it would be approaching ISDs in cost, which would make the Venator unattractive.

Now I'll have to wait until 11:00am to post again, work sucks.

What about the double red flak? That strikes me as ridiculously good, especially with Kallus added in. I see balance problems there.

12 hours ago, Darth Bane's Wrath said:

While I agree on the stats and it's anti-squadron abilities, I think that if you look at pictures of the Venator the main heavy turbolaser turrets don't superfire.

Meaning they are not stacked on top of each other to shoot straight forward. So I think that if you were to replace the front arc with the side arcs and vice versa it would be more

movie accurate. It would also be nice to see an imperial ship that is a broadsider as apose to another front arc reliant ship.

Superfiring turrets are only a thing if you can't just tilt the nose of your ship down to make them superfiring. We're in space we can do that. Now suprefiring would mean that you expose less of your ship, as you don't have to tilt the nose down, but your frontal firepower is unaffected.

2 hours ago, CommanderDave said:

What about the double red flak? That strikes me as ridiculously good, especially with Kallus added in. I see balance problems there.

"2 red dice anti-ship (but not a Bomber). This is one of the most interesting elements of the TIE Phantom: it will on average do 1 damage when attacking a ship, but it's extremely swingy: on average 39% of the time, it won't do any damage at all when attacking; conversely, 28% of the time it will deal 2 damage. You've even got a 1.6% chance of doing 4 damage, but don't count on it!"

-Eric Taylor

Granted this is about the TIE Phantom but the statistics should be the same, 2 red flak is good for giving Agent Kallus long range, and mind games. 1 X-Wing might not get damaged at all while the nearby A-Wing gets obliterated.

6 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

"2 red dice anti-ship (but not a Bomber). This is one of the most interesting elements of the TIE Phantom: it will on average do 1 damage when attacking a ship, but it's extremely swingy: on average 39% of the time, it won't do any damage at all when attacking; conversely, 28% of the time it will deal 2 damage. You've even got a 1.6% chance of doing 4 damage, but don't count on it!"

-Eric Taylor

Granted this is about the TIE Phantom but the statistics should be the same, 2 red flak is good for giving Agent Kallus long range, and mind games. 1 X-Wing might not get damaged at all while the nearby A-Wing gets obliterated.

It’s more the Range you are projecting the flak, with thevarc as well...

And ruthless strategists - with red flak? Madness that way lies.

Clone war era ships seem to have black flak (hammerheads, peltas, etc.)

Everyone who makes a Venator forgets the first rule: The Venator is the carrier, the Victory is the gunship, combine them you get the ISD.

Cannon all points to this concept, whilst the Resurgent focused more on being a starfighter carrier...but then again I think the Resurgent is straight up BS and the numbers are inflated.

More or less you'd see a Venator basically with weaker guns, weaker hull, slow (outdated by the GCW) but with a powerful anti-fighter and powerful fighter control abilities. This is a quasar you can take into a fight and push a tie swarm with...you engage ships AFTER your fighters did their job.

I really sounded like a **** there, I apologize.

Thing to understand...when making a new unit you have to ask "does this unit power creep, does it replace big ticket items, does it fill a specific role."

The role is a carrier that isn't a glass cannon, but doesn't outgun or come close to outgunning an ISD.

1 minute ago, Gottmituns205 said:

whilst    the Resurgent focused more on being a  starfighter carrier...but then again I think the Resurgent     is straight up BS and the numbers are inflated   .

Agree 100% there's no way a battlecruiser could carry 1500+ weapons when the Executor-class carries 5000 weapons, 2,915.81 meters vs 19 kilometers!

12 minutes ago, Gottmituns205 said:

I really sounded like a **** there, I apologize.

Thing to understand...when making a new unit you have to ask "does this unit power creep, does it replace big ticket items, does it fill a specific role."

The role is a carrier that isn't a glass cannon, but doesn't outgun or come close to outgunning an ISD.

No offense taken, the Imperial-class is supposed to make the Venator and Victory feel insecure about themselves. I thought 4 less hull, 2 less shields, 2 less front dice, and arguably clumsier Speed 3 would be appropriate handicaps but the price probably should go up 5pts or so for both.

I just realized that my fanon Imperial Patrol Refit is an Assault Frigate on roids! ?

11 hours ago, >kkj said:

For the same reason it has been flown since wave 1. Because its a viable competitive option. Man seriously if this game ever dies it will be because of all the negativity in this community.

Lol ya, it's the community that's responsible for 1 announcement a year.

25 minutes ago, dominosfleet said:

Lol ya, it's the community that's responsible for 1 announcement a year.

No,

Just for bitchin’ about it. ?

2 hours ago, Gottmituns205 said:

Everyone who makes a Venator forgets the first rule: The Venator is the carrier, the Victory is the gunship, combine them you get the ISD.

Cannon all points to this concept, whilst the Resurgent focused more on being a starfighter carrier...but then again I think the Resurgent is straight up BS and the numbers are inflated.

More or less you'd see a Venator basically with weaker guns, weaker hull, slow (outdated by the GCW) but with a powerful anti-fighter and powerful fighter control abilities. This is a quasar you can take into a fight and push a tie swarm with...you engage ships AFTER your fighters did their job.

2 hours ago, Gottmituns205 said:

I really sounded like a **** there, I apologize.

Thing to understand...when making a new unit you have to ask "does this unit power creep, does it replace big ticket items, does it fill a specific role."

The role is a carrier that isn't a glass cannon, but doesn't outgun or come close to outgunning an ISD.

I agree. Which is what I tried to do with the Venator I made. I'm not sure if I want to share it before doing some more testing though.

13 hours ago, Irokenics said:

And you would fly this similar but more expensive ship?

It's still speed 3. In fact, it's a speed three (large?) with a torpedo slot, which only the 75 can be right now- and this Venator has a better defensive suite with at least one redundant token!

4 dice and being cheaper than an ISD-II means it's as good as an ISD-II with a slashed cost.

Fighter 5 is unprecedented- even Quasars... nothing-but-carrier-deck ships as they are, cap at 4. I think the only time we'd go 5 is something like the Resugrent. Super Star Destroyers have fighter 5- you mean to tell me the Venator carries as much fighters as the SSD when an SSD could practically swallow a Venator?

2 Red AA is the best reach. Take Ruthless strategist, every ace, and do 1+ damage to every fighter you're splashing.

Indeed, why would you take a VSD over this thing? VEN-I is XI7s with Ordnance Experts, Tua with ECMs, Quad Laser Turrets. Go speed 3 to bum-rush a target and hit it with a lot of dice. Or take Boarding troopers and exhaust every token on every ship except the SSD, leaving behind 1. For less cost than an ISD. In fact, why not throw on Pryce with a boarding team and tag-team a ship with Avenger?

VEN-II is even better, packing everything you'd like on an ISD except with better squadrons, better AA, for cheaper in exchange for fewer hull and no contain.

....

Sorry... I can't abide designs like these. It's clearly superior to the VSD and ISD without an obvious weakness. If you look at every medium since the VSD, they are all noticeably poorer in one degree or another, to keep the VSD valid. Even among the MC80s there's one obvious flaw to make them all not-fantastic in some area or another. What are the weakness of these Venator designs?

13 minutes ago, Captain Ordo N-11 said:

I agree. Which is what I tried to do with the Venator I made. I'm not sure if I want to share it before doing some more testing though.

I am interested to see your take on the ship, but I hope it's not a broadsider, I'm watching right now Venators pour damage onto the Malevolence from the forward arc.