7 hours ago, Norsehound said:

Disposable   Capacitors on the VSD-II is a combination  uniq  ue because its the only instance in the  game  I'm aware  of you can hammer some   one at long  ran   ge with 6 dice (u  p to 8  i  f  y  ou have a increase dice upgrade, like spinal  armament, and concentrate fire). Not ev  en a Cymoon can do this on its own, and for one t  u  rn you have the best gunship possible in the ga   m  e  .  

Someone doesn’t play rebels. Ackbar MC80A throws six reds at long range. QBT or EA pushes it to seven dice. Defiance can push it to 8. CF to nine. So you can get 9 dice total with 2 black, 1 blue, and 6 red with the right upgrades. Toss in LS, and those are rerollable.

That said, you’ll get the VSD for significantly cheaper, albeit for only one turn’s worth of that long range heavy firepower.

Congratulations.

You've sunk 100 pts into a ship that can barely move and can shoot a good volley ONCE.

Barely moving isn’t an issue if you don’t need to.

Have a game plan built around controlling an area and you’ll get better mileage out of the VSD.

9 hours ago, XR8rGREAT said:

If we make the victory better then all that will happen is then something else will be the worse ship to choose. Then we will what that fixed everything has to have a down side.

I know that I'm side tracking the thread a bit, but:

1- there is upgrading a ship to the same power level as the other ships and there is upgrading a ship power level so it gets played on a regular basis. This thread clearly is about the second point.

2- that being said. I feel that VSD, while being the worst, is not the only ship needing reword. Interdictor being another good example. Not that it's a bad ship, but its cost need a second look. (Even though I think we will see fun build with the SSD)

The last time I saw a VSD or two on the table, the following happened:

Squall --> Bombers eat at side from r1, 7th fleet useless

Bombers continue to drill

ISD moves up, kills VSD with XI7

Starts process with 2nd VSD.

Evades enemy ISD.

2nd VSD dies to squads.

DCaps did DEFINITELY help. But it's the SAME story every time. They CANNOT dictate engagement, they CANNOT disengage, and they are HELPESS vs squads.

Battle Star pack. Like Ace's for X-wing but for Armada.

(Battle Star like the award for a naval vessel not TV show)

Honestly playing so much second Ed X-wing, I'm staying to wonder in a few years what second Ed Armada might look like. Just ride the waves with the SSD nonsense until they get around to Clone Wars Armada... Which now that I think about it they might not have announced because it IS second edition. Just thinking out loud.

VSDs are great carriers. Slightly more expensive than Quasars and a lot more durable and heavier hittng.

All VSD’s are bad if they’re your first deployment of the game.....

Barring something like contested post or salvage run where you know you have to be you should be delaying your vsd’s deployment till last. And even in those scenarios I’d try to drop it last so that you can set up the ideal approach for shots later in the game

It’s hard capped at speed two. Don’t drop it somewhere and get counter deployed and then say it’s bad cause you couldn’t strong arm it to speed three.

Honestly, the fact that a post like this pops up every two weeks tells me that enough people have a problem with this ship that maybe something needs to be done about it.

VSDs are very good ships. For me they are the imperial workhorses and good ol' imperial standard. ISDs are stronger, allrounders and the empires most iconic ships - But Vics are one of the most/the most cost-efficient ships in the game.

Pros:

- cheap (73/85 pts for 14 dice, 8 hull points and 10 shiels is a good deal)

- 8 Hull points its the same value like MC80s

- dangerous front arc

Cons:

- slow and immobile

Yeah and I think thats the only real contra argument. The VSDs bad reputation is because its a Wave I/core set imperial slowpoke already had enough time on the field and seems worthless behind that shiny ISDs and new Waves content. I played a ISD/VSD List last weekend and were suprised that they really CAN EFFECT the game, unlike someone would mean

Tarkin-Token-Bar

Faction: Galactic Empire
Points: 396/400

Commander: Grand Moff Tarkin

[ flagship ] Imperial I-Class Star Destroyer (110 points)
- Grand Moff Tarkin ( 38 points)
- Sovereign ( 4 points)
- Instructor Goran ( 7 points)
- Heavy Turbolaser Turrets ( 6 points)
= 165 total ship cost

Victory II-Class Star Destroyer (85 points)
- Dominator ( 12 points)
- Disposable Capacitors ( 3 points)
- Heavy Ion Emplacements ( 9 points)
= 109 total ship cost

Victory I-Class Star Destroyer (73 points)
- Warlord ( 8 points)
- H9 Turbolasers ( 8 points)
= 89 total ship cost

3 TIE Interceptor Squadrons ( 33 points)
= 33 total squadron cost

VSD like to have some tokens they can spend, concentrating on revealing nav-commands on their own dials to do some II-click maneuvers. VSDs can be used as carriers (Corrupter) dice-controlling frontline-ship (Warlord) and as long range "electronic warfare" fire support with DC and some Ion Action.

I mean.. just give them a chance

I own three of them (agreed, the third was a gift I received). I tried playing them.

To me:

• As an area denial, 80 pts is a bit too expensive and they are too easy to flank / outmanoeuver to do it. You want area denial, go with a GSD or two.
• As a gunship, they are not nearly as tough as they look (I strongly disagree on the "they are good because they are difficult to kill". They are tough under motti ... but each time I played a VSD, I was surprised by how fast they'd fall once my opponent decided to focus on it), and pack a medium punch that gets overshadowed quickly (3 reds at long are highly subject to evade). If you want red dices, ISD & Arquitens do a better job of being a long range, tough artillery platforms.
• As a squadron platform, it's not too bad, even tough it now suffer from the Quasar being 25pts cheaper. But I'll gladly admit that the VSD has way more staying power and punch back potential than a Quasar... so they can be worth it. With Thrawn I guess (so you can activate & navigate at the same time).

So, I gave them a chance. And then some. They are not awful. They need fixing to work properly. Which is quite precisely this thread's question.

7 hours ago, Astrodar said:

Someone doesn’t play rebels. Ackbar MC80A throws six reds at long range. QBT or EA pushes it to seven dice. Defiance can push it to 8. CF to nine. So you can get 9 dice total with 2 black, 1 blue, and 6 red with the right upgrades. Toss in LS, and those are rerollable.

That said, you’ll get the VSD for significantly cheaper, albeit for only one turn’s worth of that long range heavy firepower.

This is true, I was thinking along the lines of comparing against other Empire ships when I made my comment, but it doesn't get any better when you stack the VSD up against that and it can't compete... much like how it can't compete against every heavy ship designed to kill other heavies and lighter.

As an Aside, I think every medium suffers from the problem of getting mashed between one-shot-one-kill heavies and expendable-activation-sponge lights. To survive the medium class in the Empire has to hyper specialize, like the INT and QF, but the A/F and VSD are notably lacking in power, and it's in my perception the Assault frigate loses out completely since it is underpowered compared to the VSD. It's also significant that the Rebellion has only that one medium, and its in a worse position than the VSD by being surrounded with better heavies that are also cheap.

6 hours ago, TheCallum said:

Barely moving isn’t an issue if you don’t need to.

Have a game plan built around controlling an area and you’ll get better mileage out of the VSD.

Yes but, what do you do against a list that is also designed for area controlling and has a deeper bid than you do (Say, Rieekan Aces backed by Yavaris, my popular punching bag example)?

VSDs can work if you go second and you're protecting a Contested Outpost with an INT to drag it closer to you. They do not work if you have to attack such a position, because the urgency of taking those points away limits your maneuver options for the sake of getting to that position to stop your opponent from scoring.

Otherwise you're willingly conceding those points to your opponent, gambling on some whiplash from annihilating all their ships.

And while that may be true, plodding by at speed 2 means any red-dice centric list is going to have the luxury of pelting you for several turns on the approach while a similar speed 3+ monster is in your face on the next turn, ready to rumble.

13 hours ago, Ling27 said:

I believe the counter question to "why would I use a VSD when I could use an ISD,"is a much better question.

" Why do I feel like I have to take ISDs over VSDs? "

Worded in this light, we can look at what makes the ISD a better item, but also what are the downsides to taking one? For me, I use 2 VSD1s, with ACMs, OE, and Q7 Tractor Beams; each costing 90 points for a total of 180 points. If I equip a Kuat (because thats the one I would have to use for missles) with the same upgrades, 1 costs me 128pts.

So I can have, 2 activations, with 16-20 hull, with 12 total dice, and 2 tries to slow you down. I have 2 ships over 1/4th my fleet. Yes, if one goes down its a lot of points, but there is still another ship to use. Its a spread in damage and targets.

Or

1 activation, 11-14 hull, 8 total dice, and 1 try to slow you down. If my ISD goes down, then thats it, its gone. I have to rely on that ship soaking as much fire as possible, dealing as much damage as my other ships/squadrons, ect.

I like to run Tarkin, so maybe its that need for multiple ships, but I think that as the first ship, the VSD should have set the benchmark...

Recently I've been running 2x VSD lists with both Tua and Brunsen to try getting some use out of them. The problem I've encountered is flexibility in points, since I try reaching about 4 activations, trying to fit everything I need in a list so it can respond to all comers (leaving my VSDs for anti-capital work, trying to cram in fighters and something to control them effectively). T

hat's the issue I'm kind of having with the VSD lists- I need to practice them more to be certain, but the last tournamnet I took it to, I ended up last. My ARQ list i took in the tournament two weeks later ended up second.

Still, see GreenKnight's response above. I feel better lists (even like that ARQ list) are going to try to isolate one VSD at a time to blow it up, especially if it's forced into an uncomfortable position with an opponent's gross initiative bid (I think my ARQ list has 12 points).

So I am not alone in my feelings about the Victory, the worst part of the ship in my opinion is the severe lack of flexibility, in a game where most ships have various options to run them. Think of all the ways to play CR90s or ISDs for example, while almost any VSDII will have DCaps.

The cruel irony is that if the Venator is added to Armada, it will likely be superior to it's intended replacement.

8 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

So I am not alone in my feelings about the Victory, the worst part of the ship in my opinion is the severe lack of flexibility, in a game where most ships have various options to run them. Think of all the ways to play CR90s or ISDs for example, while almost any VSDII will have DCaps.

The cruel irony is that if the Venator is added to Armada, it will likely be superior to it's intended replacement.

Severe lack of flexibility in a design that’s a compromise carrier/gunship ?

9 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Severe lack of flexibility in a design that’s a compromise carrier/gunship ?

I didn't make the thread to bash the VSD, but to ask how people run them competitively against the other Imperial options. I want to run the Victory, but I haven't been able to make it a good flagship compared to ISDs, or as a support ship compared to GSDs, Raiders, and ARQs.

6 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

So I am not alone in my feelings about the Victory, the worst part of the ship in my opinion is the severe lack of flexibility, in a game where most ships have various options to run them. Think of all the ways to play CR90s or ISDs for example, while almost any VSDII will have DCaps.

The cruel irony is that if the Venator is added to Armada, it will likely be superior to it's intended replacement.

I'm honstly surprised we haven't seen more of the, "No, it's fine" VSD crowd in here. I think the most empirical statement to the VSD's predicament is how absent it is from Tournament lists. If it were okay, like Demolisher or MC30s with a title, we'd see it more often. I don't think even the likes of Dcaps has saved it, and Tua (while she makes the ship okay) is only a unique. If only 7th fleet were cheaper/more effective!

Re: Venator
I don't think so necessarily, as some people paint the Venator as a large ship, making it compete with the ISD variants. Between the VEN and VSD, VEN is more of a carrier, likely to slot a couple offensive retros and do more work with commanding squadrons to do their bidding while backing them up with an okay-ish battery. I imagine the VSD equivalent would be if the Interdictor flipped engineering and fighter roles and swapped out the Experimental slots for offensive retros. something like (not exactly) that.

But as a Heavy it's going to rub shoulders with the ISD-I, which is exactly that kind of mission profile (And what keeps it valid after the ISD-K and -C variants released). Possibly be a more long-ranged vessel than the ISD-I, but still have the good fighter support of that vessel.

After all, quasars didn't necessarily knock VSDs out of the running in a carrier role, though it's a sad comparison. In order to keep the VSD valid as a ship (with an already tricky defensive profile), the makers of the QF were forced to make it defensively worse , so you wouldn't hot-drop all of your VSDs to take up QFs to abuse with Sloane. My critical brain would say the QF is almost unplayable, because the severe lack of defense options is unacceptable for me. However, the fighter 5 and good combinations makes it worthy again because of the chance of a powerful alpha strike. Just don't risk it in combat.

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Severe lack of flexibility in a design that’s a compromise carrier/gunship ?

...yoked with mandated speed 2 and no natural defensive retrofit option. Other carriers hit harder, command more craft, and/or are sturdier. Other gunships/battery ships are cheaper, hit consistently, and are faster...so why invest in a crunchy VSD that's going to lose to all the big batteries nearly everyone is flying around?

Tournament players don't. In my judgement, taking a VSD is more of a challenge/desire than a sound list-building option outside of a specific circumstance (ie, what can I take to counter-punch Raddus knowing he'll take an MC75/Liberty? Sure, a VSD with Tua!).

57 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

As an Aside, I think every medium suffers from the problem of getting mashed between one-shot-one-kill heavies and expendable-activation-sponge lights. To survive the medium class in the Empire has to hyper specialize, like the INT and QF, but the A/F and VSD are notably lacking in power, and it's in my perception the Assault frigate loses out completely since it is underpowered compared to the VSD. It's also significant that the Rebellion has only that one medium, and its in a worse position than the VSD by being surrounded with better heavies that are also cheap.

I've said before, the AF is good with Ackbar. They might be niche, but the AF has a role. The VSD might be good only with Vader or Thrawn or something, but it still has a role.

Just now, Piratical Moustache said:

I didn't make the thread to bash the VSD, but to ask how people run them competitively against the other Imperial options. I want to run the Victory, but I haven't been able to make it a good flagship compared to ISDs, or as a support ship compared to GSDs, Raiders, and ARQs.

I'd say start with Tua. As I mentioned above she's necessary to run a VSD against lists with large volumes of firepower- just don't cry too much over your officer slot. It's the price to pay.

Your objectives can help determine which ship you want to bring. Defensive objectives? Entertain a VSD-I with Expanded Launchers to creep up and attack anyone trying to approach the objective. The VSD is naturally sturdier than the GSD and also fields a significant number of black dice with some pretty good reds, and it isn't designed for boom-and-zoom operations. Try to use that to your advantage.

For others, a D-Cap-II is a good choice. It overcomes the VSD's deficiencies in speed by projecting those 6 dice downrange on a target as a powerful alpha strike. Packing a choice Ion (High intensity Ions, SW-7s, Leading Shots, or even Overload Pulse) can be a great way to soften a target to follow up for something else (ARQ barrages, Bombing Runs, Demolisher Run, even another VSD of either variant).

I think in a way VSDs are the inverse problem of taking ISDs, as others have pointed out: cost. If you want a honed tool to do something better that you don't have an ISD around for, it's the VSD. Just be wary that there are a lot of things out there in tournament lists designed to kill ships quickly: Massed fighters and Heavies with large batteries. Where possible, try to deploy in such a way that they have to cross a field of death before getting to the most vulnerable part of your list.

@Norsehound Somewhat off topic but I think the Venator could go either Medium or Large being between the Interdictor and Liberty, being a Large ship would obviously grant more advantages like access to Strategic Advisor.

You're going off topic on your own thread. Bonus point for style.

4 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

I'd say start with Tua. As I mentioned above she's necessary to run a VSD against lists with large volumes of firepower- just don't cry too much over your officer slot. It's the price to pay.

I would disagree here. Its nice to have, but its 9 points and runs contrary to "keep your VSD cheap, expect to lose it" paradigm. So nope, not necessary.

6 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

Defensive ob  jectives? Entertain a VSD-I with Expanded Launchers

Erm.. Do you really expect to shoot from close range front arc more than once against any opponent worth their salt? Therefore, External Racks all the way (and now all arcs are threatening at close range).

10 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

I think in a way VSDs are the inverse problem of taking ISDs, as others have pointed out: cost.

This. So its worth keeping in mind that the more upgrades are there on the ship, the smaller the price difference between VSD and ISD is. Therefore I'm not a fan of christmas-tree VSDs unless done for a specific purpose that can't be achieved with ISD (Warlord, DCaps etc).

Do VSDs need an overhaul?

Yes, by the players.

?

2 minutes ago, geek19 said:

I've said before, the AF is good with Ackbar. They might be niche, but the AF has a role. The VSD might be good only with Vader or Thrawn or something, but it still has a role.

I mean, yeah sure because they're an affordable source of 3-red broadsides. If ever the Rebels get an affordable broadsider with nearly that much firepower of their own (say I dunno, a rebel Dreadnought or access to Republic ARQs), A/Fs for this role are going to be dropped like, well, a hot potato. I have the sense many rebel players invest in something like a title-carrying MC30 instead of the Assault frigate for attack roles. For carriers, few things match Yavaris, unless you desperately need to field Flight Controllers on something carrier related. Even then Peltas are cheaper.

I think VSDs are better off in this regard because they can work with a few admirals. Konstantine (yeah I know) uses them for their inherent medium-ness (likely why he was designed the way he was, to encourage multiple medium lists). Vader is going to like their large batteries. Tarkin is there if you want the sense of an almost heavy while fielding multiples. Screed is going to like whatever is in the ion/torpedo slot.... I can go on.

For while all of this is true, it means nothing when you're in a list deployed against that heavy. The strategy and upgrades you built into the VSD mean nothing if you didn't take Tua, and that monster heavy rolls an acc. Then all you can do is sit there and take it.

The reason why this irks me so much is over one thing I hate the most in game environments: lack of agency. I hate how defenseless VSDs are in a very common meta situation, and I hate how I'm forced to field certain upgrades in order to avoid even worse situations on the table. The way to get me to hate a game the quickest is to say, "you're dead, because I say so, and there's nothing you can do about it." which is why I abandoned X-Wing: too many blank green dice unable to stop my ships from blowing up. /Rant

8 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

@Norsehound Somewhat off topic but I think the Venator could go either Medium or Large being between the Interdictor and Liberty, being a Large ship would obviously grant more advantages like access to Strategic Advisor.

We can probably move the VEN discussion elsewhere (or reopen one of the others that showed up when the clone wars was announced), but likely that's going to be a factor in where FFG decides to balance the VEN. I think QFs are not supposed to be medium, but small base. They were changed probably because the ship felt more like a medium than a small, the Empire is typically larger over smaller ships, and to help out some of the other medium-supporting things like Konstantine.

3 minutes ago, PT106 said:

I would disagree here. Its nice to have, but its 9 points and runs contrary to "keep your VSD cheap, expect to lose it" paradigm. So nope, not necessary.

I get where you're coming from with this, and that's certainly a way to play them. But, like I said above, I don't want to be hemmed in to a situation where I'm given a plethora of upgrades, the potential to use them, and being unable to because some axiom decrees they must be cheap. I do acknowledge that's one way to respond to the VSD's fragility, but it's one I don't accept as the only way to play these ships.

If anyone decides to go that route, I'd suggest trying the wall of Victory (5x VSDs with Motti) at least once. There aren't enough points to give them all External Racks (likely by design), so play with what you want to do with this kind of force (bid for the objective? give Motti's destroyer something nice? Upgrade part of your force?).

2 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

I do acknowledge that's one way to respond to the VSD's fragility, but it's one I don't accept as the only way to play these ships.

No disagreement here. My objection was raised only due to a statement that Tua is a required upgrade.

Here's an attempt to run not one but two VSDs in a list. Assuming player skill is roughly equal, would this list stand a chance against the popular tournament builds?

VSD Attempt

Faction: Galactic Empire
Points: 393/400

Commander: Grand Admiral Thrawn

Assault Objective: Most Wanted
Defense Objective: Contested Outpost
Navigation Objective: Solar Corona

[ flagship ] Victory II-Class Star Destroyer (85 points)
- Grand Admiral Thrawn ( 32 points)
- 7th Fleet Star Destroyer ( 5 points)
- Minister Tua ( 2 points)
- Gunnery Team ( 7 points)
- Disposable Capacitors ( 3 points)
- Electronic Countermeasures ( 7 points)
- Quad Battery Turrets ( 5 points)
- Leading Shots ( 4 points)
= 150 total ship cost

Victory II-Class Star Destroyer (85 points)
- 7th Fleet Star Destroyer ( 5 points)
- Captain Brunson ( 5 points)
- Gunnery Team ( 7 points)
- Disposable Capacitors ( 3 points)
- Quad Battery Turrets ( 5 points)
- Leading Shots ( 4 points)
= 114 total ship cost

Arquitens-class Light Cruiser (54 points)
- Hand of Justice ( 4 points)
- Captain Needa ( 2 points)
- Turbolaser Reroute Circuits ( 7 points)
= 67 total ship cost

1 Whisper ( 20 points)
1 Zertik Strom ( 15 points)
1 TIE Phantom Squadron ( 14 points)
1 Tempest Squadron ( 13 points)
= 62 total squadron cost