Welcome back to The Ship Files!
In Part 1, we tackled the first half of the Imperial roster — the Arquitens, Gladiator, Gozanti, and the mighty ISD — and laid out what ARC can't (or won't) change. Points, yes. Cardboard, no. Ship cards? Also a no, for unknown reasons.
This time, we’re picking up the rest of the fleet — from Interdictors and Onagers to everyone’s favorite flying dumpster, the Victory. As before, we’ll stick to ARC-realistic tweaks, throw in a few “what if” ideas for fun, and keep the triangles angry.
Interdictor-class Cruiser
The Interdictor is a fascinating concept — a tanky support ship that bends space and ruins your opponent’s deployment plans. The model looks great. The fantasy is strong. The reality… not so much.
The problem is that the ship was designed around a gimmick, and then built to only do that gimmick. It has 5 engineering and a Support Team slot (hello, Projection Experts), an Ion slot, and an Offensive Retrofit — all pushing you toward a slow, chunky, utility role. Its Command 2 should have been a blessing, but with only two token slots, it ends up a curse.
And don’t get me started on the double Contains. The MC75 learned the same painful lesson: “more Contain” does not equal "better" or "more fun."
The Suppression Refit is the better of the two — two grav slots and plenty of blues. The Combat Refit costs more for fewer grav slots and red dice you can’t support. It’s like paying extra for a smaller cup of coffee.
ARC’s points cut (down from 93 to 85) helped, but didn’t solve anything fundamental. The ship still doesn’t know what it wants to be.
What if: Give the Combat Refit a Turbolaser slot. Suddenly, you have a reason to bring it — maybe as a long-range bruiser or area-denial specialist. Salvo would also make it tougher, but that just pushes it further into “immovable wall” territory, and nobody needs more of those.
Verdict: Leave as is. ARC has already done what’s possible without deeper redesigns.
Onager-class Star Destroyer
Ah yes, the Onager — the ship that broke more friendships than any other.
To be clear, I don’t hate the Onager. I hate Ignition (Long) — especially when stapled to a large base that can go speed 4. It was created to punish fortressing, and it did that job very well… while also creating a whole new problem: a ship that shoots you before the game even starts.
It warped the meta for years, forcing fleets to tech specifically for it or die trying. AMG’s eventual fix was elegant in only the most literal sense: they just cranked the points. No mechanical changes, no ignition tweaks — just “add points and call it a day.” Lazy, but effective enough.
What if: Make the red beam Ignition (Medium) instead of Long, and limit Engine Techs through tags or upgrade restrictions. That would keep the Onager scary but reduce the “sniping you from hyperspace” nonsense.
Verdict: AMG went too far with the price hikes. The Testbed at 112 and the Star Destroyer at 116 would be a much better balance, but I suppose we'll just have to live with the current price point.
Quasar-class Carrier
Some people claim there are two Quasar variants. I remain unconvinced.
Jokes aside, the Quasar is a purebred carrier — it exists to push squadrons and do absolutely nothing else. The Quasar II adds some firepower and better upgrade flexibility, but do you really want to spend those points for Ruthless Strategists + Flight Controllers? Probably not.
What if: Realistically, nothing.
Verdict: The 7-point gap between the two variants is too steep. Close it to 5 points, and suddenly the II becomes a choice (maybe) rather than a trap.
Raider-class Corvette
The Raider is one of the most stylish ships in the game — and also one of the most fragile. It looks like it’s flying fast, just sitting on the table, and then it explodes before its first shot lands.
The Raider I wants to knife-fight, but black-dice brawlers are suffering in the current meta. It gets in close, throws dice, and dies. The Raider II can play the skirmisher game with D-Caps and Ions, but that combo gets expensive fast, and you’re still on a tissue-paper hull.
What if: Nothing major. The ship does what it does, and when it works, it’s beautiful. It just needs a small nudge to make that work more often.
Verdict: Raider I to 42 points, Raider II to 44–45. Enough to make them feel like reasonable fillers again without risking Raider spam.
Victory-class Star Destroyer
Hello, flying triangular trash compactor.
The Victory’s biggest flaw isn’t its speed; it’s the combination of low speed, poor yaw, and forward-only firepower/weak flak.
Ideally, you’d fix it by improving yaw — one extra yaw at the first joint at speed 2 would make all the difference — but since that’s off the table, we’re left with points. The question is how far down you can go before spam becomes a problem.
For context: the Recusant is 85, the Star Frigate 73, the AF2B 72, the AF2A 81. The math just doesn’t add up. Even with ARC’s adjustments, the VSD still feels overpriced for what it delivers.
Ironically, the Victory II is in a slightly better spot now, thanks to the price drop — decent long-range punch with D-Caps and the Harrow title to fake mobility.
What if: Give it that extra yaw at speed 2. It wouldn’t make it good, but it would make it playable.
Verdict: Victory I at 70, Victory II at 78. Still not great, but at least less embarrassing. The chassis remains a relic — a museum piece you have to over-equip just to keep alive.
Venator-class Star Destroyer
Funny how the Empire arguably got the best Venator in the game.
It’s a weird ship — a relic of Clone Wars design that sneaked into the Imperial arsenal complete with Salvo and even a Bombard tag. It looks strange next to the rest of the Imperial lineup, but it actually fills a neat niche: cheaper than a Kuat, tougher than an ISD-I, and very comfortable in a brawl.
What if: Nothing. It’s fine. Maybe too fine.
Verdict: Leave it alone. Even if the ISD-I drops as suggested in Part 1, the Venator still holds its ground as a distinctive, well-priced large ship, and the Kuat is 12 points more expensive.
Star Dreadnought-class (aka “Bargain SSD”)
We’ll stick to the two 400-point-legal variants here: the Command Prototype and the Assault Prototype. The massive Executor versions are fun to look at, but not really part of normal play.
To FFG’s credit, they did a decent job balancing these beasts. In the right hands, they’re competitive. Not dominant, but viable. That alone is an achievement.
My biggest gripe isn’t the firepower or the cost — it’s the yaw problem. The SSD only really works with Jerjerrod; without him, it turns like a dead moon. That’s sloppy design. A ship this iconic shouldn’t be balanced around one commander. Yes, I know about Piett, but that's not an argument I'm willing to accept.
What if: In a dream world, the SSD would have built-in yaw modifiers or a few more commander options. Realistically, it’s stuck as the “Jerjerrod special.”
Verdict: The Command Prototype could easily drop 20 points to 200. The Assault Prototype, maybe 10 points to 240. They’d still be niche, but a little less punishing to bring.
Final Thoughts on Cost and Context
I started this series saying small ships needed the most help — and they do — but it’s the big ships that get the biggest rebates. That’s not hypocrisy, it’s math. A 10-point cut on an SSD means something very different from a 3-point cut on a Raider. These ships don’t compete for the same slot in list-building; they compete within their own weight class.
Medium ships remain the trickiest category — squeezed between efficient smalls and versatile larges. You can’t fix that just with points. But you can at least make sure every ship feels like it belongs on the table.
Next Up: Rebel ships, parts 1 and 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment