15 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

I feel like Venators should have 2 Officer slots.

One for each half of the bridge tower.

13 hours ago, Indy_com said:

I believe you've spelt "Rey From Nowhere" incorrectly...

/s

hmmm, corran looked to be spelled right when I uploaded, I'll check when I get home. /s

So really dumb question but where is everyone getting the templates from for the customs?

9 minutes ago, Athlon2736 said:

So really dumb question but where is everyone getting the templates from for the customs?

https://kdyards.com/index.php

I keep talking about wanting an Imperial corvette, so here is my idea:

It has 1 more red dice in the side arcs and 1 more shield in the rear arc, but I removed the Support Team slot as a counterbalance(?). I inverted the CR90 maneuver chart because I thought it would be interesting to make it have tighter turning ability but a bit less control at the end of the maneuver.

Still not sure if the CR92a should be 48 or 50pts, and I don't really have an idea of what the "b" variant should be.

I really like it. If I have time at some point I'll see if I can drag my roomate into a game to test it out.

As for a B-variant, the typical thing is to swap blue dice for black, but I think that may be a bit played out. As a variant, you could try playing with the arc angles instead - that'll give them a very distinct feel from each other.

What if you give the B variant an offensive retrofit?

I know we've seen Venators done a million times, but I haven't really seen one that I liked and I would like to make one that is properly well balanced, and doesn't make anything obsolete, so I am open to criticism and suggestions before I start playtesting it.

Everything can be subject to change and suggestions, I tried to make it fill in the same sort of role the MC-75 does, being a mainly broadside ship, with other capabilities.

5 minutes ago, Atromix said:

I know we've seen Venators done a million times, but I haven't really seen one that I liked and I would like to make one that is properly well balanced, and doesn't make anything obsolete, so I am open to criticism and suggestions before I start playtesting it.

Everything can be subject to change and suggestions, I tried to make it fill in the same sort of role the MC-75 does, being a mainly broadside ship, with other capabilities.

The trick with it as is, is the question:

What will be your testing variables?

I mean, using Rebel upgrades or Empire upgrades? Where will you pull Admirals from?

I ask, because a GT Ackbar and/or a Vader makes a huge difference to its performance versus not having them...

Just now, Drasnighta said:

The trick with it as is, is the question:

What will be your testing variables?

I mean, using Rebel upgrades or Empire upgrades? Where will you pull Admirals from?

I ask, because a GT Ackbar and/or a Vader makes a huge difference to its performance versus not having them...

Going to be using it as Empire, vs Rebellion.

1 hour ago, Atromix said:

Everything can be subject to change and suggestions, I tried to make it fill in the same sort of role the MC-75 does, being a mainly broadside ship, with other capabilities.

I like 90% of what I see here. My general feedback for all Venator cards is:

• To differentiate it from all other imperial carriers, particularly ISDs, remove weapons team and add support team
• Then drop to speed 2 max
• Add second crew and Turbo-laser upgrade
• Not sure about the 2 blue anti-squadron armament, probably weaken it to encourage fighter screens

3 hours ago, Divad said:

I like 90% of what I see here. My general feedback for all Venator cards is:

• To differentiate it from all other imperial carriers, particularly ISDs, remove weapons team and add support team
• Then drop to speed 2 max
• Add second crew and Turbo-laser upgrade
• Not sure about the 2 blue anti-squadron armament, probably weaken it to encourage fighter screens

1 I think it is fine with Gunnery teams at speed 3.

2 see above

3 I agree totally about a second officer slot would make the Venator unique.

4 2 blue ASq isn't that strong of ASq. I think it should have a variant with 2 dice.

46 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

I agree totally about a second officer slot would make the Venator unique.

Phoenix Home?

1 minute ago, geek19 said:

Phoenix Home?

For Imperials.

20 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

For Imperials.

Right, but then why not have ships that have dual Ord slots, too? And where's my dual weapons team or experimental retrofits thing so I can shove obstacles around?

10 minutes ago, geek19 said:

Right, but then why not have ships that have dual Ord slots, too? And where's my dual weapons team or experimental retrofits thing so I can shove obstacles around?

Idk. Give Rebels a dual Ion slot. Maybe share that double defense slot.

Ok, so I reworked the upgrade slots and made a second variant, these are still open for suggestions and change.

As always, Suggestions and criticism are greatly appreciated!

Less is more.

Your second basically invalidates the Quasar ... sure it’s not expensive, but if still fights, too - and does all the squads... and gives you almost all the slots you want...

Plus I’m super leery of double officer. More than one officer has only a single precedent outside of the SSD and we rarely see it because of opportunity cost... on this side, there’s so many good officers to double up on..

I agree with @Drasnighta while I like the foundation with the upgrade package you have these venators need to be more expensive or if you want the same points reduce the upgrade package. A better idea would be to give it a different set of upgrades vs the quasar to allow each to have tactical variations

I mean, to clarify and expound my point:

Points alone won’t make the difference. We can tell this with the VSD. It’s a cheaper package than the ISD, but you’re willing to spend the points to go that far forbthebpayoff

I feel at least with the carrier, that would happen there - thevquasars gimmick is being a super carrier which in one variation can pack double offensive gunnery, and double gunnery offensive in the other.

in thus case you don’t even have to choose! It scoops up that gimmick and hands itbto a nice platform.

So I’m wary it essentially invalidates them.

Its the hardest part of balancing the game now, and I wish I had better suggestions for you - but I really feel the venator is going to have to pick what it’s good atcand just be good at that, or be mediocre at everything - they were replaced after all... and what we have here is not that yet ?

Here is V3, based on what @Drasnighta said, I've tried to find its niche and make it a more heavily turbolaser focused ship, somewhat mirroring the MC-75 ordnance cruiser and its black die focus with the dual upgrades.

52 minutes ago, Atromix said:

Here is V3, based on what @Drasnighta said, I've tried to find its niche and make it a more heavily turbolaser focused ship, somewhat mirroring the MC-75 ordnance cruiser and its black die focus with the dual upgrades.

So it's a broadside Cymoon worth better squadrons for CHEAPER because it steers worse?

18 minutes ago, geek19 said:

So it's a broadside Cymoon worth better squadrons for CHEAPER because it steers worse?

It’s akso down 1 shield and 1 Hull and 1 redirect token.

And of course nobfkeet Command.

What, 8 points cheaper ?

Seems it loses a fair bit over the comparison...

2 hours ago, Atromix said:

Here is V3, based on what @Drasnighta said, I've tried to find its niche and make it a more heavily turbolaser focused ship, somewhat mirroring the MC-75 ordnance cruiser and its black die focus with the dual upgrades.

Now this I like

The problem I see with most Venator designs is that they're balanced against ISDs, not the VSD. The Victory Star Destroyer was the better brawler, and the Venator was the better carrier.

In my mind the Venator would be very similar to an Assault Frigate.