3 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

(large?)

Yes that was my intention.

I can't fault your reasoning, but my original 4 dice front arc of 3 Red 1 Black for the stock Venator would likely have been accused of being under-powered.

The fact is the Venator-class Star Destroyer has become a prism, everyone sees something different.

22 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

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.

Some things I think I am going to change pending testing, -1 defense token, maybe brace. -1 anti squadron die, changing the arcs (I like the one you have, I just need to figure out which one it is), and maybe changing the dice, where and how many I'm not sure of. I gave it 4 front shields because I figured with the open hanger they would be strong. My goal was to make it inferior to the victory for fighting ships. And large, I wasn't sure if it should be large or medium but after getting the model there was no way it was medium.

Honestly,. I think the Malevolence scene was out of necessity to be using their frontal batteries...

They were in pursuit, and could barely keep up as it was... There was no pulling alongside to use broadside batteries - especially considering the Malevolence itself was such a heavy broadside biased ship itself... Would have been suicide to try...

2 minutes ago, Captain Ordo N-11 said:

Some things I think I am going to change pending testing, -1 defense token, maybe brace. -1 anti squadron die, changing the arcs (I like the one you have, I just need to figure out which one it is), and maybe changing the dice, where and how many I'm not sure of. I gave it 4 front shields because I figured with the open hanger they would be strong. My goal was to make it inferior to the victory for fighting ships. And large, I wasn't sure if it should be large or medium but after getting the model there was no way it was medium.

I wish I could tell you which arc setting it was, but I was literally clicking at random until I found something more appropriate than the Liberty style arrangement. Your flak although shorter ranged is too deadly I think, and 2 Off. Refit slots steps on the Imperial I's toes a bit too much, I'd bring it down to 1.

4 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

I wish I could tell you which arc setting it was, but I was literally clicking at random until I found something more appropriate than the Liberty style arrangement. Your flak although shorter ranged is too deadly I think, and 2 Off. Refit slots steps on the Imperial I's toes a bit too much, I'd bring it down to 1.

I agree with the flak being a bit much, that's one of the things I'll be changing. I would remove one of the offensive slots but I figured since its meant to be mostly a carrier that would fit well. Maybe remove one and make a title that acts as boosted comms? Or does that make the same problem in a different way?

11 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Honestly,. I think the Malevolence scene was out of necessity to be using their frontal batteries...

They were in pursuit, and could barely keep up as it was... There was no pulling alongside to use broadside batteries - especially considering the Malevolence itself was such a heavy broadside biased ship itself... Would have been suicide to try...

Obi-Wan had the 3 Venators fly a bit lower to use all their heavy double turbolasers.

Thinking alone these lines makes feel the ISDs have too weak side arcs, the Imperial II has 8 o ctuple barbette turbolasers after all...

Also where/what is your profile picture from? I know this isn't right but it keeps reminding me of Dishonered.

2 minutes ago, Captain Ordo N-11 said:

I agree with the flak being a bit much, that's one of the things I'll be changing. I would remove one of the offensive slots but I figured since its meant to be mostly a carrier that would fit well. Maybe remove one and make a title that acts as boosted comms? Or does that make the same problem in a different way?

Well then it would be unique, a mega squadron pusher among super squadron pushers. ?

Also I didn't know editing the original post also edits any quotes, so now it appears to any new readers that I'm blind.

1 hour ago, Piratical Moustache said:

Well then it would be unique, a mega squadron pusher among super squadron pushers. ?

Also I didn't know editing the original post also edits any quotes, so now it appears to any new readers that I'm blind.

That's the point. Quasar and ISD-1 can do the same thing but with 1 less squadron. One is 31 points less but more delicate and not as good vs ships, the other is 25 points more but tankier and much(?) better vs ships. I'd like it to be the "best" at pushing squadrons but with a price tag that reflects it and stops it from being your main battleship. I'm not sure if that is possible but that's what I'm trying for. Quasar is still more points efficient but not by much, maybe I should increase the points on my Venator by 5-10? Or like you said, remove one of the offensive slots.

Also why does KYD take forever to update things after you edit it?

1 hour ago, Captain Ordo N-11 said:

Also why does KYD take forever to update things after you edit it?

It doesn't. You just need to clear the cache history. (I think that's the correct term.)

19 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

It doesn't. You just need to clear the cache history. (I think that's the correct term.)

Thank you, that is incredibly useful.

3 hours ago, Piratical Moustache said:

Well then it would be unique, a mega squadron pusher among super squadron pushers. ?

Also I didn't know editing the original post also edits any quotes, so now it appears to any new readers that I'm blind.

I did some changes, your thoughts would be welcome. I probably won't change anything else until I get a chance to test it though.

3 hours ago, Piratical Moustache said:

Obi-Wan had..

Don't stick to lore to justify some quirk of making this ship more powerful than it should be. Victory-IIs were refitted to have better engines to make them faster specifically for the needs of space combat. This fact is not reflected on their ship card. And this was BEFORE the disney acquisition that elliminated the expanded universe!

Ergo, just because its in lore doesn't mean it has to be built into the ship. What is the general characteristic of the Venator? An old-model contemporary of the Victory but with the size of an Imperial, designed for primarily supporting fighters. This tells me it is, in comparison to the ISD:

• Under-gunned due to age.
• More fighter-focused.
• Possibly slow, otherwise why is the VSD slow except due to age?

3 hours ago, Captain Ordo N-11 said:

Some things I think I am going to change pending testing, -1 defense token, maybe brace. -1 anti squadron die, changing the arcs (I like the one you have, I just need to figure out which one it is), and maybe changing the dice, where and how many I'm not sure of. I gave it 4 front shields because I figured with the open hanger they would be strong. My goal was to make it inferior to the victory for fighting ships. And large, I wasn't sure if it should be large or medium but after getting the model there was no way it was medium.

Why are you guys insisting on two AA dice? Given the Venator has an overwhelming focus in fighter support, drop the AA down to 1 die and let the fighters do the anti-fighter work. You already have what a carrier wants: Two offensive retrofits for Boosted Comms and/or Expanded Hangars and a weapons team for Flight Controllers. With a token passer she's a large ship with a fighter 6 rating (Just like the ISD and QF). Unlike the QF she can take a hit, and unlike the ISD-I she isn't pricey. Again, dropping down to 1 AA means ISD-Is still have a two dice advantage over this clone wars relic.

Remember the Venator has to compete with the ISD-I as another large-ship carrier. How does your design not make the ISD-I, already competing with the Kuat refit for close-range attacks, obsolete?

I don't understand how the older Venator has a better broadside than a modern ISD- keep the two reds but drop the last die down to two blues (or blacks). The forward battery is good. I'd bring the engineering back up to 4 and let the contain be a redirect again to keep consistency with the VSD/ISD models. This ship doesn't have a Defensive Retrofit, so it's going to have the same problems the VSD labors under anyway (hi I rolled an accuracy and have XI7s. How are you defending against my 8 damage?). Lack of an ordnance slot means it won't compete with the VSD-I.

The 4/2/1 shields aren't necessary for a balance, bring the flanks up to 3. If it's a large ship with the same shield generators as the ISD, there's no reason to have this arrnagement. In terms of protection the VEN already suffers from fewer hull points than the ISD. I think you can bring the hull up to 9- 8 at this size is for former luxury liners like the MC80s- not for heavily armored imperial starships. Just don't go crazy- remember the Venator is older than the ISD and contemporary with the VSD. Make it old.

I'd want to knock this down to speed 2 out of spite, because there's no reason the VSD should suffer alone. Assuming you can get relay out of something like a Nu-class attack shuttle, speed 2 shouldn't be a problem. After all if it's good enough for it's contemporary the VSD, it should be good enough for the Venator. You don't need the extra speed really because 1. Your primary attack assets are the most mobile thing in the game (fighters) and 2. With the strength you have in your ship, you shouldn't have to run anywhere like a Quasar fleeing from battle... or an ISD that has to keep the potential for close-range assault rushes open because it's The Main Character of this game and has to do everything.

Don't be afraid to make this under-armed compared to the ISD- some players are taking Interdictors as heavy assault ships even though the have inferior armament to the VSD. This is because INTs can still field assault options with other upgrade cards (DCaps, HIEs), not out-slamming their enemies with larger batteries. The point to a Venator should be in serving as a solid battle carrier: it's awkward with gun armament, but it makes up for it with a great selection of fighters.

And remember; with rare exceptions every ship is supposed to have a weakness. Even if that weakness is cost.

22 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.

not every diverging opinion to your personal believes on a specific topic are negativities.

7 hours ago, Captain Ordo N-11 said:

I did some changes, your thoughts would be welcome. I probably won't change anything else until I get a chance to test it though.

I really like it, maybe I would add 1 more red dice to the front arc but that's it.

11 hours ago, Piratical Moustache said:

I wish I could tell you which arc setting it was, but I was literally clicking at random until I found something more appropriate than the Liberty style arrangement. Your flak although shorter ranged is too deadly I think, and 2 Off. Refit slots steps on the Imperial I's toes a bit too much, I'd bring it down to 1.  

55°/100° Split (3/8in aft)

7 hours ago, Norsehound said:

Don't stick to lore to justify some quirk of making this ship more powerful than it should be. Victory-IIs were refitted to have better engines to make them faster specifically for the needs of space combat. This fact is not reflected on their ship card. And this was BEFORE the disney acquisition that elliminated the expanded universe!

Ergo, just because its in lore doesn't mean it has to be built into the ship. What is the general characteristic of the Venator? An old-model contemporary of the Victory but with the size of an Imperial, designed for primarily supporting fighters. This tells me it is, in comparison to the ISD:

• Under-gunned due to age.
• More fighter-focused.
• Possibly slow, otherwise why is the VSD slow except due to age?

Why are you guys insisting on two AA dice? Given the Venator has an overwhelming focus in fighter support, drop the AA down to 1 die and let the fighters do the anti-fighter work. You already have what a carrier wants: Two offensive retrofits for Boosted Comms and/or Expanded Hangars and a weapons team for Flight Controllers. With a token passer she's a large ship with a fighter 6 rating (Just like the ISD and QF). Unlike the QF she can take a hit, and unlike the ISD-I she isn't pricey. Again, dropping down to 1 AA means ISD-Is still have a two dice advantage over this clone wars relic.

Remember the Venator has to compete with the ISD-I as another large-ship carrier. How does your design not make the ISD-I, already competing with the Kuat refit for close-range attacks, obsolete?

I don't understand how the older Venator has a better broadside than a modern ISD- keep the two reds but drop the last die down to two blues (or blacks). The forward battery is good. I'd bring the engineering back up to 4 and let the contain be a redirect again to keep consistency with the VSD/ISD models. This ship doesn't have a Defensive Retrofit, so it's going to have the same problems the VSD labors under anyway (hi I rolled an accuracy and have XI7s. How are you defending against my 8 damage?). Lack of an ordnance slot means it won't compete with the VSD-I.

The 4/2/1 shields aren't necessary for a balance, bring the flanks up to 3. If it's a large ship with the same shield generators as the ISD, there's no reason to have this arrnagement. In terms of protection the VEN already suffers from fewer hull points than the ISD. I think you can bring the hull up to 9- 8 at this size is for former luxury liners like the MC80s- not for heavily armored imperial starships. Just don't go crazy- remember the Venator is older than the ISD and contemporary with the VSD. Make it old.

I'd want to knock this down to speed 2 out of spite, because there's no reason the VSD should suffer alone. Assuming you can get relay out of something like a Nu-class attack shuttle, speed 2 shouldn't be a problem. After all if it's good enough for it's contemporary the VSD, it should be good enough for the Venator. You don't need the extra speed really because 1. Your primary attack assets are the most mobile thing in the game (fighters) and 2. With the strength you have in your ship, you shouldn't have to run anywhere like a Quasar fleeing from battle... or an ISD that has to keep the potential for close-range assault rushes open because it's The Main Character of this game and has to do everything.

Don't be afraid to make this under-armed compared to the ISD- some players are taking Interdictors as heavy assault ships even though the have inferior armament to the VSD. This is because INTs can still field assault options with other upgrade cards (DCaps, HIEs), not out-slamming their enemies with larger batteries. The point to a Venator should be in serving as a solid battle carrier: it's awkward with gun armament, but it makes up for it with a great selection of fighters.

And remember; with rare exceptions every ship is supposed to have a weakness. Even if that weakness is cost.

I am in this game partially because of my love for the lore, so I disagree with large deviations from it. The Victory II-class Star Destroyer should be able to go Speed 3 for a 12pt increase. I don't like the Executor has only Squadron 5, it limits all future expansions to 4, otherwise people will say "it doesn't carry as much fighters as the SSD". If Squadron value is based mostly on it's in-universe maximum fighter complement, then the Executor-class should be around Squadron 8. It had 144 TIEs stock but could carry thousands.

Not trying to be rude either, but I am a fan that wishes ships I've liked since childhood like the Victory were as good as they should be.

On 8/8/2018 at 8:12 PM, Piratical Moustache said:

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.

I think that you reduced its power too much, with the dice count it has it just isn't quite strong enough to be a large, it would work perfectly as a medium but as a large I think that at least a four dice broadside( 3 red and a black) would do the Venator more justice and that a five would be great but might also have the potential be a bit strong, but thanks for your contribution I quit like your design and think that fantasy flight should look into it. I'm really not satisfied with just the super star destroyer being wave 8 unless they announce some more ships like the Venator or the Dornean gunship or better yet the dreadnought class for both factions or the assault frigate mk 1 for the rebels and the dreadnought for the imperials.