Just now, Khyros said:

The Raider is *far* from the worst point / performance ship. They hit well above their weight class with OE and Exracks, dropping 3 blues 6 blacks on a single turn (given over 2 attacks, but can still be 2 blue / 5 blacks from a single attack). And they have the speed to get out of there then. They are missing a redirect, which sucks, but if played correctly, they'll take some front hull shields on their approach, and then run away, exposing their rear shields for the departure, so they can get away without having a redirect. They a small enough of a threat that they're not worth chasing down, but hit hard enough that you have to worry about them. My favorite thing to do is to drop the massive attack onto a mid-level threat, and then gtfo and track down the flotilla. With their blue dice, they're much better at killing them off than a Gladiator, and allows them to continue to contribute to the game after they drop their payload. Whenever I have 2 Gozantis in my fleet, I question "would I be better served by a Raider?" The answer is not always yes, but it often is. Even if you get outbid and end up as player 2, these things can flank your primary threat, such that while they may escape your front arc of your ISD, they still end up eating 7 dice to the face... Or better yet, they ram your Raider, leaving them in the front arc of the ISD, and both the Raider and the ISD combine to finish off an untouched ISD.

All of that is about the Raider I, and primarily about player 1... But the Raider II with Dcap HIEs can be brutal as well, especially if Screed is your commander. But even if he isn't, you still have a 58% chance to trigger HIEs - 68% if you double arc. And with Dcaps, you can traditionally do this twice before the rest of your fleet engages, stripping the target of pretty much all of its shields. This is a great 60 point ship for 2nd player (given it doesn't work in all fleets). And if you ever run up against a 134pt squadron list, they can augment your 50-60pt squads by throwing double flak for a round or two, ideally during their approach run for its primary task.

Which ship is worse for it's basecost and the activations it provides ? Aside from the Interdictor nothing comes to mind. Mind you i have almost always Raiders in my lists since i started playing 3 years ago, not saying i know my stuff or anything but there needs to be a bit more meat on this bone before i concede to that point. And you can't just say "it's missing a redirect" no, it's not. The relationship is exactly what i said before, cost -> performance. You can't say the ship is fine and then still ask for a change of it. Either decrease the point cost or make it better. It's the same thing, you're just evading the point there, no offense.

10 minutes ago, Lancezh said:

Which ship is worse for it's basecost and the activations it provides ? Aside from the Interdictor nothing comes to mind. Mind you i have almost always Raiders in my lists since i started playing 3 years ago, not saying i know my stuff or anything but there needs to be a bit more meat on this bone before i concede to that point. And you can't just say "it's missing a redirect" no, it's not. The relationship is exactly what i said before, cost -> performance. You can't say the ship is fine and then still ask for a change of it. Either decrease the point cost or make it better. It's the same thing, you're just evading the point there, no offense.

I didn't ask for a change. I would argue on the Imperial side, the VSD, Arq, and Interdictor are worse from a cost:performance ratio. VSD-1's main advantage over the R-1 is the red dice instead of blue, so it can strike at long range. However, its awful speed and navigation chart makes its much harder to get into close range to make use of those black dice. Furthermore, the R-1 higher speed means that it doesn't need red dice to get into the fight. The VSD-2's is probably better than the R-2 at the Dcap/HIE thing, and has enough health that if focused on, won't get 1 shot at medium range. However, it's also almost twice as expensive as the R2.

The Arq may be a closer analysis since it's closer on points than the VSD. It requires at least DTT, putting it at 59/64 points. The main advantage it has is the inclusion of redirect tokens, but it lacks the brace, and only has a single evade. It will provide a more even damage throughout the fight, but fails to have that burst damage that the Raider (1 or 2) can provide. The Interdictor is difficult to do a direct comparison against, and that's not to say that it's a bad ship, it's just a completely different play style, focusing on tanking damage and dealing very little out. Generally it's considered over cost for what it brings to the table.

On the rebel side, I would argue the MC80L, AFMk2, Neb-B and Pelta are worse on the cost:performance ratio. The MC80L is the only forward pointing heavy ship the rebels have, trying its best to be a ISD, but really comes across more like a VSD. Double brace is nice, but I'd rather have a defensive retrofit and a single brace in all honesty. You're almost required to use ETs if you want to get anywhere due to the subpar navigation chart, but at least it ends up giving you the option for speed 4 that way. It fails to really do anything that great though. A first player Raider 1 can do serious damage to the MC80L and take very little damage in return. And that's for half the price. Heck, a pair of them could likely take out an MC80L without losing either of them in the process. I'm curious to now try that out... If only people flew the MC80L such that I could give it a go.

I don't want to hate on the AFmk2, because I like the ship, but others have pointed out how being the ultimate generalist is not a good thing when you design your fleet for a purpose. It still runs the risk of being 1 shot be a good roll, but the difference is that it wants to be in the fight to some extent. Nebulon Bs not named Yavaris are almost useless. And I've only once seen a Pelta on the table to even know what it can do, and was part of a gimmick fleet more than anything.

Now, don't interpret this as saying that these ships listed are awful... I'm quite fond of the Raider, but I'm providing a list of a few ships that have (imo at least) a worse cost/performance ratio. Also, regarding the redirect comment, note that I said if it's played right, it doesn't need the redirect. I was not commenting that redirect would fix the ship and it'll never be worth its points until it has it. And in all honesty, the inclusion of Brunson has made a single R-1 for 55points pretty much an auto include for me... The ship is a massive tank then. You can evade a single double, Brunson another double, and then you're left to eat whatever's left, which is hopefully not much (or if they don't have an accuracy, you can even brace that down to half). It is a ship that lives by the Nav/CF dials... but knowing when to do an Engineering is vital to keeping it on the table until the end of round 6. And its one of the few ships that I'll use those 2 eng points to move shields instead of regaining health.

55 minutes ago, Lancezh said:

Which ship is worse for it's basecost and the activations it provides ? Aside from the Interdictor nothing comes to mind. Mind you i have almost always Raiders in my lists since i started playing 3 years ago, not saying i know my stuff or anything but there needs to be a bit more meat on this bone before i concede to that point. And you can't just say "it's missing a redirect" no, it's not. The relationship is exactly what i said before, cost -> performance. You can't say the ship is fine and then still ask for a change of it. Either decrease the point cost or make it better. It's the same thing, you're just evading the point there, no offense.

I think you're stuck on the wrong problem. Raiders (primarily Raider-Is we're discussing here) don't have a cost to performance problem. With External Racks and Ordnance Exerts, they're 51 point packets of pain that can one-shot other small ships and put a serious hurt on even medium to large ships, especially when they team up with one another or other ships. They also have great flak, but people frequently think that's a replacement for instead of a supplement to a fighter screen or other more fundamental anti-squadron elements, but I digress.

The problem Raiders have that CR90s don't have is you can't just drop a 51 point Raider into an Imperial fleet and expect it to do fine like you can a 51 point Turbolaser Reroute Circuits CR90A. Because they're relying on black dice to get work done, Raiders need a fleet that can facilitate that, frequently with higher activations and preferably a bid for first. If you use Raider-Is in fleets that aren't designed to make them work, they're going to struggle to perform and feel like they're not very cost-effective. In the right fleets, they do great. Needing the right fleet/commander to be cost-effective is a problem they share with the Arquitens, which is frustrating because those are the two cheapest Imperial combat ships.

Raider-IIs can be used in most Imperial fleets nowadays without as much setup required, but they get expensive. Without a commander giving you attack dice control (like Screed or Vader), you'll want Veteran Gunners to fish for the blue crit, which brings them up to 65 points for the Raider-II, Disposable Capacitors, Heavy Ion Emplacements, and Veteran Gunners. That's fine, but it's not a cheap light combat ship at that point and generally you won't want more than 1, 2 at the absolute most.

I dont understand why a 59pt Dual Turbolaser Turret Arq cannot be dropped into any imperial fleet to provide some basic long range damage. Can anyone explain?

I agree it would do better with Vader or Jerrod. Similarly the TRC90 is better with Cracken, Madine or Ackbar.

An Arq has a worse movement than a CR90 but has a far sturdier hull. 3 red dice DTT is better than 2 dice TRC in most cases.

3 hours ago, Snipafist said:

I think you're stuck on the wrong problem. Raiders (primarily Raider-Is we're discussing here) don't have a cost to performance problem. With External Racks and Ordnance Exerts, they're 51 point packets of pain that can one-shot other small ships and put a serious hurt on even medium to large ships, especially when they team up with one another or other ships. They also have great flak, but people frequently think that's a replacement for instead of a supplement to a fighter screen or other more fundamental anti-squadron elements, but I digress.

The problem Raiders have that CR90s don't have is you can't just drop a 51 point Raider into an Imperial fleet and expect it to do fine like you can a 51 point Turbolaser Reroute Circuits CR90A. Because they're relying on black dice to get work done, Raiders need a fleet that can facilitate that, frequently with higher activations and preferably a bid for first. If you use Raider-Is in fleets that aren't designed to make them work, they're going to struggle to perform and feel like they're not very cost-effective. In the right fleets, they do great. Needing the right fleet/commander to be cost-effective is a problem they share with the Arquitens, which is frustrating because those are the two cheapest Imperial combat ships.

Raider-IIs can be used in most Imperial fleets nowadays without as much setup required, but they get expensive. Without a commander giving you attack dice control (like Screed or Vader), you'll want Veteran Gunners to fish for the blue crit, which brings them up to 65 points for the Raider-II, Disposable Capacitors, Heavy Ion Emplacements, and Veteran Gunners. That's fine, but it's not a cheap light combat ship at that point and generally you won't want more than 1, 2 at the absolute most.

This was speficially aimed on the OP asking for an Imperial Counterpart to the CR90. The CR90 is an extremely versatile ship providing activations, dealing damage etc. Don't get me wrong, i almost always include Raider into my list, but it's very very hard to bring more than 1. Due to the new errata you can have 3 "cheap" activations with 2 Gozantis and 1 Raider that fills a usefull role. And then.... you're done, there's no more cheap activations, this is more a problem of line up as the Raider cannot fill the role of the CR-90 or Hammerhead to provide a cheap activation. That's why i said, you have to look at this of a point of opportunitycost. Imperial list building is seriously skewed at the moment, comparing the Raider to the CR-90 performance wise is just not the whole story. Ships also provide activations and need to be looked at in their context, and right now that context is the (almost) autoinclude of an ISD with SA.

1 hour ago, Ginkapo said:

I dont understand why a 59pt Dual Turbolaser Turret Arq cannot be dropped into any imperial fleet to provide some basic long range damage. Can anyone explain?

I agree it would do better with Vader or Jerrod. Similarly the TRC90 is better with Cracken, Madine or Ackbar.

An Arq has a worse movement than a CR90 but has a far sturdier hull. 3 red dice DTT is better than 2 dice TRC in most cases.

There are a number of reasons. Cost is my big hang up on them. Near 60 points with a Turbolaser fix upgrade, and it still has other issues such as poor speed 3 navigation chart, and the fickleness of Red dice. Vader and JJ are big helps in this regard. And sure they throw 3 red dice with DTT compared to the 2 with TRC, but they are doing it at 8 points more with no guarantee of a double damage and that CR-90s being command 1 can easily toss in a ConFire without worrying too much about maneuvering thanks to a fantastic maneuver chart at all speeds.

The Arquitens is slightly more durable at long range as long as it has shields, however you are probably going to burn through those fast and can't rely on fast speed and great maneuver chart for arc dodging. Personally I would take 2 Evades over 2 Redirects, but that is just an opinion. Arquitens are still good mind you, especially if bringing fix admirals and dropping some points on them, but then they end up being over 60 points without a brace and they fall easily at sub long range. Lots of ships bring XI-7 these days so I think I would take a TRC90 over Arquitens any day as an imperial commander.

1 hour ago, Ginkapo said:

I dont understand why a 59pt Dual Turbolaser Turret Arq cannot be dropped into any imperial fleet to provide some basic long range damage. Can anyone explain?

I agree it would do better with Vader or Jerrod. Similarly the TRC90 is better with Cracken, Madine or Ackbar.

An Arq has a worse movement than a CR90 but has a far sturdier hull. 3 red dice DTT is better than 2 dice TRC in most cases.

You can drop an arq into a list, but I think a TRC90 is clearly better in just about every way for 8 points cheaper. The only strengths I'd give to the arq are the firing arcs which cover much more ground, and the 5th hull point.

But a TRC90 is effectively speed 5 vs speed 3, has 7 clicks vs 3 with a nav command, and shoots roughly as hard with more reliability. I will say that the arq can tank squadrons significantly better, but unless you can kill it in one go the TRC90 is going to fly away speed 5 and either out-run the squads or dodge the worst arcs of enemy ships.

I love arquitens but oh man if I have a 60 point hole in my list I would want a TRC90 every single time.

Of course then the discussion really should be "does the Empire deserve a TRC90 equivalent given all the other tools they have access to?" I could put a comically powerful ISD+cr90 fleet together.

In a vacuum, I agree the Empire has a hole in the 50-60 points range. If you were looking to build a complete roster, it would definitely be an area of improvement, as would more bomber options and better Escorts.

But I disagree that FFG should fill that hole (and that gors for both factions). Both factions have strengths and weaknesses both in list building and on the table and, in my opinion, it's fine this way. Otherwise you lose a lot of the faction "identity" not so much in the thematic sense, but purely in the gameplay-differentiation sense that you don't have 2 gray-ish factions that can more or less do the same things.

My problem is the lack of anything in between the Gozanti and the Raider, price wise. There is a 16 point spread between a Combat Gozanti and a Raider I. The Rebels have only a 12 point spread between the Armed GR75 and the Hammerhead torp. With the Rebels able to get an actual combat ship in the list for 8 points cheaper than the imperials. That gives Rebels a huge versatility advantage in list building.

1 hour ago, Lancezh said:

This was speficially aimed on the OP asking for an Imperial Counterpart to the CR90. The CR90 is an extremely versatile ship providing activations, dealing damage etc. Don't get me wrong, i almost always include Raider into my list, but it's very very hard to bring more than 1. Due to the new errata you can have 3 "cheap" activations with 2 Gozantis and 1 Raider that fills a usefull role. And then.... you're done, there's no more cheap activations, this is more a problem of line up as the Raider cannot fill the role of the CR-90 or Hammerhead to provide a cheap activation. That's why i said, you have to look at this of a point of opportunitycost. Imperial list building is seriously skewed at the moment, comparing the Raider to the CR-90 performance wise is just not the whole story. Ships also provide activations and need to be looked at in their context, and right now that context is the (almost) autoinclude of an ISD with SA. 

If you have a fleet that has the framework to make Raider-Is work, then you really should be running at least two unless it's an alternative (L)MSU setup (like @duck_bird used recently, usually as a distraction threat) because the main thing Raiders require to do well (lots of activations) are provided cost-effectively by Raiders themselves. If you don't have a framework to make Raider-Is excel, then you should be running zero.

I agree with you that right now the Imperial internal meta when it comes to fleet-building for a competitive event is unsatisfactory , for what it's worth. There are a lot of factors involved, but one of the elements is the lack of granularity caused by both of the cheaper combat ships not being that cheap and only being a worthwhile inclusion in fleets specifically set up to ameliorate the problems inherent to those ships.

That said, it seems like you're hung up on number of activations and are including a Raider and two Gozantis because that's the cheapest way to get to 3 before including anything else. Average activations lately at a lot of competitive events have been around 5. That can definitely justify bringing a Strategic Adviser (who I'm also not a fan of for his effect on the meta overall) but bringing something like a Raider purely for activations regardless of if the fleet can maximize its value seems unwise when you can get up to 4 or 5 without too much hassle normally. Admittedly, that's with the very-common ISD with SA, but that's where the faction is at right now.

I also don't understand what you're getting at when you state that a 51 point Raider is inferior to a 51 point CR90A at providing an activation.

Ermahgawd Rebel ships are slightly cheaper, the sky is falling in.

Now I would like to see all the rebels to ask to see a Rebel large ship which is as efficient and flexible as an ISD. Instead Rebel get this patchwork of annoyingly specialised larges.

Factions are different. Grass is always greener on the other side. Play both factions to cure the envy that you have.

8pts is 2% of a list. If you want 7 activation imperials you can do it, and its a **** sight more hard hitting than the rebel equivalent.

1 hour ago, Ginkapo said:

Ermahgawd Rebel ships are slightly cheaper, the sky is falling in.

Now I would like to see all the rebels to ask to see a Rebel large ship which is as efficient and flexible as an ISD. Instead Rebel get this patchwork of annoyingly specialised larges.

Factions are different. Grass is always greener on the other side. Play both factions to cure the envy that you have.

8pts is 2% of a list. If you want 7 activation imperials you can do it, and its a **** sight more hard hitting than the rebel equivalent.

If we're going to jump into whataboutism with different units how about we jump to that place where souped-up rebel fighters/aces can make fresh ISDs vanish using Yavaris and an entourage of flotillas carrying key officers and upgrades?

Or we can not go down that rabbit hole and keep discussing the Imperial's need for a light combat ship that doesn't break the bank.

As an Empire player I desire to see something that's simply, a ship. A small ship that doesn't have something wrong with it. Can I trade away the exceptionalism of the Gozanti (scatter) and Raider (above-normal hitting power) for something trusty and steady? Something like a 2-red dice ship that caps at speed 3, doesn't have a lot of clicks, command 1, with slots for an officer, a turbolaser, and maybe another upgrade?

2 hours ago, Norsehound said:

If we're going to jump into whataboutism with different units how about we jump to that place where souped-up rebel fighters/aces can make fresh ISDs vanish using Yavaris and an entourage of flotillas carrying key officers and upgrades?

Or we can not go down that rabbit hole and keep discussing the Imperial's need for a light combat ship that doesn't break the bank.

As an Empire player I desire to see something that's simply, a ship. A small ship that doesn't have something wrong with it. Can I trade away the exceptionalism of the Gozanti (scatter) and Raider (above-normal hitting power) for something trusty and steady? Something like a 2-red dice ship that caps at speed 3, doesn't have a lot of clicks, command 1, with slots for an officer, a turbolaser, and maybe another upgrade?

Sure. Soon as you give up Sloane, Mauler, Valen, Ciena and all of those lovely synergistic squadrons, if that’s the argument you’re going to make.

2 hours ago, Norsehound said:

If we're going to jump into whataboutism with different units how about we jump to that place where souped-up rebel fighters/aces can make fresh ISDs vanish using Yavaris and an entourage of flotillas carrying key officers and upgrades?

Or we can not go down that rabbit hole and keep discussing the Imperial's need for a light combat ship that doesn't break the bank.

As an Empire player I desire to see something that's simply, a ship. A small ship that doesn't have something wrong with it. Can I trade away the exceptionalism of the Gozanti (scatter) and Raider (above-normal hitting power) for something trusty and steady? Something like a 2-red dice ship that caps at speed 3, doesn't have a lot of clicks, command 1, with slots for an officer, a turbolaser, and maybe another upgrade?

I don't think @Ginkapo 's point is "oh yeah, well Rebels have it worse" (or maybe it is, what do I know), just that both factions have the same kind of problem somewhere and that's what differentiates them.

We could even expand on that and ask what would a plug-and-play, well-rounded small-base ship do to imperial fleet building in a world where the ISD and the SSD exist? Yes, the Rebels have a well-rounded small ship (CR90) and a cheaper combat ship (Hammerhead). But do they really have anything on the top end that can make this broken? What about the admirals? Does Motti change things? Does Vader? Palpatine? Sure, eveything can be balanced, but maybe balance is why the imperials end up with a Raider and not a CR90.

If anything, the thread is going more into the direction of an Imperial Hammerhead equivalent, something really cheap, to fill a gap, but the Hammerhead is hardly a ship that doesn't have anything wrong with it (being vulnerable to light sneezes being its main thing). And even then, would 3 Hammerheads + an ISD be unbalanced?

12 hours ago, Snipafist said:

I agree with you that right now the Imperial internal meta when it comes to fleet-building for a competitive event is unsatisfactory , for what it's worth. There are a lot of factors involved, but one of the elements is the lack of granularity caused by both of the cheaper combat ships not being that cheap and only being a worthwhile inclusion in fleets specifically set up to ameliorate the problems inherent to those ships.

I think the larger point is indeed the sameness of Imperial fleets. And I don't know if a new small base is the way to address it. Maybe it is, but would a Medium or Large broadside ship be better in the grand scheme of things? A combat flotilla ? I think I'd rather see something that opens up new design space, or at the very least aims to keep a certain faction identity, than plugging in an equivalent of a ship from the other faction, be it an Imperial Hammerhead or a Rebel ISD.

That's a lot of questions and I don't offer any answer... but it's early in the morning, give me a break ?

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Sure. Soon as you give up Sloane, Mauler, Valen, Ciena and all of those lovely synergistic squadrons, if that’s the argument you’re going to make.

Blasphemy! Imperials must play ISD! It's not Imperial if it isn't a big turbolaser-ion cannon-ordnance-filled pizza slice.

</joke>

I guess what would happen if we start building fleet without chosing flotillas first. Maybe we end filling those gaps with them. Just wondering.

Well, the size of the Imperial Support Vessel hasn't been stated yet so it could be slotted into the small slot, and well I'd like at least one variant of the Dreadnought show up for the Empire.

Even if I prefer the original look.

Ahhh the good old; I see a problem, but others do not. Debate. I really love these, because they always boil down to the posters point of veiw on the topic. That's not a bad thing I find it facinating how many differing and completely valid veiws on a topic. This one I think boils down to:

I think similar fractions are the way to go

Vs.

I think different factions are the way to go

I thinks it's really interesting.

6 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Sure. Soon as you give up Sloane, Mauler, Valen, Ciena and all of those lovely synergistic squadrons, if that’s the argument you’re going to make.

I mean Rebels have Rieekan. The Admiral that won worlds twice in a row. But I digress.

Back on topic. I just want the Arquitens to be a little cheaper or more maneuverable honestly. I dislike the concept that these ships were made with these flaws so that they require fixer admirals. There are ways to counter them not involving admirals sure, but then you got a ship at 60+ points that won't last too long at ranges under Long.

7 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Sure. Soon as you give up Sloane, Mauler, Valen, Ciena and all of those lovely synergistic squadrons, if that’s the argument you’re going to make.

What if I said yes? The only caveat is that the Empire can get fighter-bombers as good as the Rebellion's in exchange (I'm glad you didn't say Maarek Stele). I also can't acknowledge your synergy remark over the sound of Nora Wexley, and Jan Ors, great escort squadrons, Toryn Farr, Ashoka Tano, and the cheapest fleet support slot in the game.

6 hours ago, CptAwesomer said:

I don't think @Ginkapo 's point is "oh yeah, well Rebels have it worse" (or maybe it is, what do I know), just that both factions have the same kind of problem somewhere and that's what differentiates them.

We could even expand on that and ask what would a plug-and-play, well-rounded small-base ship do to imperial fleet building in a world where the ISD and the SSD exist? Yes, the Rebels have a well-rounded small ship (CR90) and a cheaper combat ship (Hammerhead). But do they really have anything on the top end that can make this broken? What about the admirals? Does Motti change things? Does Vader? Palpatine? Sure, eveything can be balanced, but maybe balance is why the imperials end up with a Raider and not a CR90.

Well if Admirals change things, last I heard Raddus MC75s were hard to beat and there was no reliable Imperial counter. It's so bad that's why Rebel players brought out Rieekan again at what, day 2 of worlds, after he stomped the field in Day 1? That's the ISD equivelant the rebels are seeking in firepower, since that dishes out disaster so well.

I don't think you can count the SSD as part of that 'these are great well rounded' ships partly because we don't know how it will perform on the table yet, and it's a very huge investment in points for perhaps little return. I daresay maximum fighter attrition is likely to reduce the SSD to scrap just as easily as it does with ISDs. Certainly a raddus bomb in the flank is not going to let the SSD live long. At least relying on ISDs its' a smaller base you can use to fly away from the MC75 after Raddus drops but... not the SSD.

And asking if a small base ship is appropreate for the Empire is a fair question given the layout of the fleet. But... this question asked if the Empire needs a ship in this space. As an Imperial player I say yes, because I don't like how difficult the Raider is to use in comparison.

Moreover something cheaper with red dice is something the Empire lacks- we have to choose between anemic flotillas and pricier ARQs. I don't think the Rebels have this problem- they have a spectrum of craft that can escalate pretty gradually but lack something at the top. On the other hand, they can afford to buy more smaller ships for different roles, gaining activation advantages and not putting all of their eggs in one basket.

Quote

If anything, the thread is going more into the direction of an Imperial Hammerhead equivalent, something really cheap, to fill a gap, but the Hammerhead is hardly a ship that doesn't have anything wrong with it (being vulnerable to light sneezes being its main thing). And even then, would 3 Hammerheads + an ISD be unbalanced?

I wouldn't want a Hammerhead, I'd want a CR-90 with the 2-click yaw and speed 4 sawed off and still pay for the 44 (or fewer!) points the CR-90 enjoys. The only flaw in the fantastic CR-90 is that, like the ARQ, it can't do more than you'd expect of it. It can't take medium-heavies by itself... it's a hull 3 ship that only puts out so much firepower. That's fine, I just want something that puts out 2 reds that I can build with.

Like the Hammerhead is a cheaper counterpart to the CR-90, I'd like a long-range alternative to the Raider. Hopefully something that can use its defense tokens optimally at the range it can use most of its dice. The ARQ is the closest thing and maybe what FFG would tell us is the answer to this question.

Quote

I think the larger point is indeed the sameness of Imperial fleets. And I don't know if a new small base is the way to address it. Maybe it is, but would a Medium or Large broadside ship be better in the grand scheme of things? A combat flotilla ? I think I'd rather see something that opens up new design space, or at the very least aims to keep a certain faction identity, than plugging in an equivalent of a ship from the other faction, be it an Imperial Hammerhead or a Rebel ISD. 

That's a lot of questions and I don't offer any answer... but it's early in the morning, give me a break

With generalists being the more expensive ships, Empire is forced to keep buying them, so as a result the one ship that is the most flexible is the one ship you see the most often (the ISD). Outliers trying other list-types run into problems of succeeding well, because relying on these specialist ships means the increased chance they'll hit a counter they can't respond to. Have we seen top lists in major tournaments that lack an ISD? If so, I wonder with what, how did they work, and what were they fighting?

Motti's CRambo Team

26 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

I'm  glad you didn't say Maarek Stele)

This is my point on Synergistic - Maarek/Jendon/Sabre etc...

really, my point was that this argument will revolve into the ***-for-tat of who has what better, when really, things are close on the overall balance of things I feel.

The Rebels gave nothing like a Star Destroyer... probably rightfully so.

9 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

The Rebels gave nothing like a Star Destroyer... probably rightfully so.

Do not hesitate!

10 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

This is my point on Synergistic - Maarek/Jendon/Sabre etc...

really, my point was that this argument will revolve into the ***-for-tat of who has what better, when really, things are close on the overall balance of things I feel.

The Rebels gave nothing like a Star Destroyer... probably rightfully so.

Er... Jendon's really the only 'synergistic' unit among the three you mention (and only benefiting one squadron). That's nothing compared to Norra allowing every B-Wing landing a crit one unblock-able shield hit, and Toryn+BCC guaranteeing two levels of re-rolls. Pump that up with Yavaris and you have the beginning of a magic trick that'll make entire starships disappear . I believe Empire doesn't have a combination that is this strong on the offense and this hard to counter ( Avenger becomes a fire magnet and can only Abra-kadaver once with their BTs) but... that's another argument.

See, I'd argue the Rebels have cost-effective Star Destroyers. What they do is trim out the fat to make them specialized in what they need to do, so if you build a list with a purpose in mind, you save costs. All of them are below the 120 mark of the great ISD-II, but some can also be built to trash ISDs and have some points left over to buy other ships and squadrons and retain the activation advantage. Before Cymoons came out, Liberties were the best battery ships out there because of those twin turbolaser slots. They pay for it in resiliency, but at least they did that one job as good as the ISD while trimming out everything else.

And yeah, maybe that's the virtue to take out of all this: Empire are generalist heavies and Rebels are generalist lights. And honestly I don't see a reason this balance would change anytime soon (after all, what canonical light would be offered up in this place? The Imperial Support Craft?). Still the question was open of if Imperial players would like this, and I know I would, as I've been saying.