1 hour ago, Piratical Moustache said:

Bad matchups do happen, but that's not really what I'm complaining about with regard to VSDs. I want a ship that can fight effectively against larger opponents and have a decent chance of pulling ahead.

Once I had a Dodonna AFMK2 engage in a close range broadside for 3 turns with an Ackbar Assault Cruiser, both with Advanced Gunnery. I actually won, and it felt amazing especially after all the **** that my opponent was saying about the MK2.

I haven't had or heard of anyone having that kind of experience with VSDs. I am asking to hear about VSD success stories, because I really like the ship and want to play with it more.

I once put two cymoons on half hull with one vsd, and then finished them off with an ISD. Does that count?

Just now, Do I need a Username said:

I once put two cymoons on half hull with one vsd, and then finished them off with an ISD. Does that count?

Yes it does, and I would like to honestly hear details on how you outfitted the Victory, was it a I or II, etc.

1 minute ago, Piratical Moustache said:

Yes it does, and I would like to honestly hear details on how you outfitted the Victory, was it a I or II, etc.

dcaps, warlord, h9, gt, io, ion cannon batteries. I deployed it last, drug his ships into almost a line, activated it blasted moved, almost died, and then activate blast die. The commander was Vader, and it was a fat isd II.

Tabled a Sloane Interdictor/Quasar/(Raider? Demo?) list a long while back. It was Blockade Run, so I was just sending an insane amount of firepower across the table. My opponent didn't think VSDs (or me, for that matter) were any good before the game; next week he was giving them a try. ?

I really hope FFG will consider a sequel to Corellian Conflict that focuses on ships instead of squadrons. This idea has been suggested before and I think it is still a valid one. Ship overhauls would not be necessary, just new versions ala ISD-C and ISD-K.

For instance, a VSD-3 might replace Weapons Team (gunnery team, flight controllers) with Support Team (engine techs, nav team) and Offensive Retrofit (disposable caps, expanded hanger bay) with Defensive Retrofit (ECM, advanced projectors, or RBD). Same weaknesses, but mitigated a bit and a better value for the points cost with VSDs being more common as a result.

Most of wave1 could be updated with a benefit like this (a GSD that has a role not including Demolisher, a Nebulon B with a Defensive Retrofit, a more focused AFM2 are ideas). Nothing radical, just tweaks.

So whether Scarif Skirmish, Endor Endgame or whatever, maybe FFG has or will have a ship based campaign in the works to address this.

VSDs are like most medium ships in that they seem overcosted and are the "middle child" uncomfortably stuck between the benefits of small ships (cheaper activations, better table coverage, higher quantity of attacks) and large ships (more efficient/powerful activations, best efficiency of upgrade costs, higher quality of attacks). It doesn't help that a lot of medium ships have navigate charts like they are large ships. That's not to say they can't be used well. VSDs in particular are very sensitive to screw-ups in every stage of Armada, from list-building to deployment to actual table usage. Screw up anywhere along that line and your VSD is going to generally let you down. There are also other meta-specific factors that have led to a much narrower niche for them: specifically, the introduction of the Quasar removed the VSD-I from its previous carrier role and the introduction of the Cymoon removed the VSD-II from its (newfound from the previous wave) niche as a long-ranged sniper. Strategic Adviser also weakened the activation efficiency argument too.

All that said, the simple solution is a cost reduction. Likely not just for VSDs, but for many of the medium ships (Quasar seems fine) for the reasons already given. Attempts to make VSDs into baby ISDs would not only require a larger and more confusing errata (invalidating many elements of the actual ship cards) but it would put the VSD and ISD in even more direct competition than they already are. Keep the VSDs with their current issues (nav chart and lack of a defensive retrofit) but price them more appropriately and you'll see them used more.

And if we're waving our magic wands here, I could go for cheaper VSD titles, too. Whoever thought Dominator was worth 12 points should be drug-tested immediately . @Worthington FFG III , get HR on the matter promptly, please.

@Snipafist thanks for reminding me @Worthington FFG III Exists.

Just now, Snipafist said:

VSDs are like most medium ships in that they seem overcosted and are the "middle child" uncomfortably stuck between the benefits of small ships (cheaper activations, better table coverage, higher quantity of attacks) and large ships (more efficient/powerful activations, best efficiency of upgrade costs, higher quality of attacks). It doesn't help that a lot of medium ships have navigate charts like they are large ships. That's not to say they can't be used well. VSDs in particular are very sensitive to screw-ups in every stage of Armada, from list-building to deployment to actual table usage. Screw up anywhere along that line and your VSD is going to generally let you down. There are also other meta-specific factors that have led to a much narrower niche for them: specifically, the introduction of the Quasar removed the VSD-I from its previous carrier role and the introduction of the Cymoon removed the VSD-II from its (newfound from the previous wave) niche as a long-ranged sniper. Strategic Adviser also weakened the activation efficiency argument too.

All that said, the simple solution is a cost reduction. Likely not just for VSDs, but for many of the medium ships (Quasar seems fine) for the reasons already given. Attempts to make VSDs into baby ISDs would not only require a larger and more confusing errata (invalidating many elements of the actual ship cards) but it would put the VSD and ISD in even more direct competition than they already are. Keep the VSDs with their current issues (nav chart and lack of a defensive retrofit) but price them more appropriately and you'll see them used more.

And if we're waving our magic wands here, I could go for cheaper VSD titles, too. Whoever thought Dominator was worth 12 points should be drug-tested immediately . @Worthington FFG III , get HR on the matter promptly, please.

Im with you, 100%. You not only pay 12 points for the title, but 1 shield per blue die. 4 points, maximum. Or 1 blue die against ship plus the option to get one more at the cost of shield point.

11 hours ago, Snipafist said:

VSDs are like most medium ships in that they seem overcosted and are the "middle child" uncomfortably stuck between the benefits of small ships (cheaper activations, better table coverage, higher quantity of attacks) and large ships (more efficient/powerful activations, best efficiency of upgrade costs, higher quality of attacks). It doesn't help that a lot of medium ships have navigate charts like they are large ships. That's not to say they can't be used well. VSDs in particular are very sensitive to screw-ups in every stage of Armada, from list-building to deployment to actual table usage. Screw up anywhere along that line and your VSD is going to generally let you down. There are also other meta-specific factors that have led to a much narrower niche for them: specifically, the introduction of the Quasar removed the VSD-I from its previous carrier role and the introduction of the Cymoon removed the VSD-II from its (newfound from the previous wave) niche as a long-ranged sniper. Strategic Adviser also weakened the activation efficiency argument too.

All that said, the simple solution is a cost reduction. Likely not just for VSDs, but for many of the medium ships (Quasar seems fine) for the reasons already given. Attempts to make VSDs into baby ISDs would not only require a larger and more confusing errata (invalidating many elements of the actual ship cards) but it would put the VSD and ISD in even more direct competition than they already are. Keep the VSDs with their current issues (nav chart and lack of a defensive retrofit) but price them more appropriately and you'll see them used more.

And if we're waving our magic wands here, I could go for cheaper VSD titles, too. Whoever thought Dominator was worth 12 points should be drug-tested immediately . @Worthington FFG III , get HR on the matter promptly, please.

So much was unknown back in those wave 1 days... I still don't think the creators intended to push up to 400 originally either, which doubtless also has a factor in how ISD-VSD relations turned out.

If VSDs were costed cheaper, how many would you expect to be flown in a VSD swarm list with Motti? I think that's the limiting factor on these ships and why FFG wouldn't be open to reducing the cost of the VSD (Apart from the convention of avoiding already printed cards, etx).

7 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

If VSDs were costed cheaper, how many would you expect to be flown in a VSD swarm list with Motti? I think that's the limiting factor on these ships and why FFG wouldn't be open to reducing the cost of the VSD (Apart from the convention of avoiding already printed cards, etx). 

I think I stated this before, but in my mind the correct fix to VSD is not to make it cheaper, but to make other options (namely Strategic Advisor) more expensive.

8 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

So much was unknown back in those wave 1 days... I still don't think the creators intended to push up to 400 originally either, which doubtless also has a factor in how ISD-VSD relations turned out.

If VSDs were costed cheaper, how many would you expect to be flown in a VSD swarm list with Motti? I think that's the limiting factor on these ships and why FFG wouldn't be open to reducing the cost of the VSD (Apart from the convention of avoiding already printed cards, etx).

I actually think the cheaper versions of the mk2 and VSD are fine. The expensive versions on the other hand.

4 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

I actually think the cheaper versions of the mk2 and VSD are fine. The expensive versions on the other hand.

Expensive Mk2 has a good niche as a flak platform (With Toryn Farr nearby it's brutal).

If FFG make a new VSD version I would like it with a new upgrade slot that allow to equip it with good players. ?

Just trolling a bit. ?

1 hour ago, ovinomanc3r said:

If FFG make a new VSD version I would like it with a new upgrade slot that allow to equip it with good players. ?

Just trolling a bit. ?

This attitude really irks me, joking or not.

VSD's stopped being relevant as an effective Imperial fleet component in top tier competition when Admiral Ackbar / Home one, CR90s with TRCS and MC30's with H9/ACMs arrived in wave 2, and even though they have added Admiral/upgrades to address weaknesses in VSDS, they are still garbage outside super specific niche roles, that specific we (apart from a one off) do not see them in the top of competitive lists in tournaments.

So if the very best of the players are not running VSD fleets anymore, it completely destroys any notion that only bad players think they are a poor ship.

2 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

This attitude really irks me, joking or not.

VSD's stopped being relevant as an effective Imperial fleet component in top tier competition when Admiral Ackbar / Home one, CR90s with TRCS and MC30's with H9/ACMs arrived in wave 2, and even though they have added Admiral/upgrades to address weaknesses in VSDS, they are still garbage outside super specific niche roles, that specific we (apart from a one off) do not see them in the top of competitive lists in tournaments.

So if the very best of the players are not running VSD fleets anymore, it completely destroys any notion that only bad players think they are a poor ship.

Maybe they just didn't buy one and lost the one that comes with the core. I dunno. ?

1 hour ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Maybe they just didn't buy one and lost the one that comes with the core. I dunno. ?

Haha,

Well played.

6 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

This attitude really irks me, joking or not.

VSD's stopped being relevant as an effective Imperial fleet component in top tier competition when Admiral Ackbar / Home one, CR90s with TRCS and MC30's with H9/ACMs arrived in wave 2, and even though they have added Admiral/upgrades to address weaknesses in VSDS, they are still garbage outside super specific niche roles, that specific we (apart from a one off) do not see them in the top of competitive lists in tournaments.

So if the very best of the players are not running VSD fleets anymore, it completely destroys any notion that only bad players think they are a poor ship.

I feel like anyone running a VSD with a straight face in a competitive situation is doing it for the challenge, not because it's a wise list building decision. They're doing it to show off or prove a point.

It's like running Gladiators without the Demolisher title, or Interdictors without any experimental retrofit. It's a thing you do because you can , not because it's efficient.

2 hours ago, Norsehound said:

I feel like anyone running a VSD with a straight face in a competitive situation is doing it for the challenge, not because it's a wise list building decision. They're doing it to show off or prove a point.

It's like running Gladiators without the Demolisher title, or Interdictors without any experimental retrofit. It's a thing you do because you can , not because it's efficient.

Or running Leia!

Wait....

Dammit.

5 hours ago, Norsehound said:

It's a thing you do because you can , not because it's efficient.

Or third way. You can experiment and find ways to challenge the status quo, and take VSDs competitively because they have their niche.

12 hours ago, geek19 said:

Or running Leia!

Wait....

Dammit.

Leia is good, just over costed.

6 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

Leia is good, just over costed.

or her players overrated ?

2 hours ago, TallGiraffe said:

Leia is good, just over costed.

Or just too restricted.

Tokens are cheap and useful. Her limitation is crippling.

58 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Or just too restricted.

Tokens are cheap and useful. Her limitation is crippling.

I have feelings I will not express on this forum.

1 hour ago, geek19 said:

I have feelings I will not express on this forum.

I don't know what they are, but...

15 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Or third way. You can experiment and find ways to challenge the status quo, and take VSDs competitively because they have their niche.

I don't agree, if it takes you being in the top 0.01 percentile of Armada tournament players to build a fleet with VSD's and win, that does not make VSD's competitive or a good ship. It means someone so far beyond average to be ( a statistically irrelevant integer) outplayed his opponents.

Look at the break down %'s for Imperial fleets on ship composition in top 8 winners, what % of them are running 1 or more VSD's? (in the big tournaments, not some store champ where 4 people turned up.)