Why the Raider doesn't work (I + II) and won't.

[MoffZen 760]

 

 

 

I came to love montferrat, shame that he's unique. Also he's only obstructing the attack not taking a die away (so it doesn't stack, also susceptibale to jaina's light), more importantly he blocks the spot that the intel office could take. 

 

 

Obstructing and losing a die to obstruction is the same thing

 

Once again, having a mobile cover screen for other ships is pretty darn interesting to secure a flank.

 

Truly, I don't mind losing Intel Officer on a Raider 2. To be fair, my Raider 2 deterred so much close range flanking and ganging up on my ISD that the fact it only fired side and rear shots totally makes up for its points. In any case, I'd rather have Intel Officer on something that throws large amounts of dice at longer range than to have to play a risky hit and run with one good shot from a Raider 2.

 

Against smaller ships, use it as escort. Against squadrons, use it as escort. Againt medium and large ships, use it at a double arc platform in their weakest arc through proper maneuvering. I really wasn't convinced about the Raider until tonight and it truly is a uniquely interesting ship !

 

 

No it's not the same because obstruction doesn't stack, if it would stack i could hide in an asteroid AND use Montferrat. That's all i was saying. I don't agree with how easy you make it, just one good game doesn't make this a good ship no offense.

 

 

Man, come on, you're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative here.

 

I said that obstruction and losing a dice due to obstruction are the same things. I never said Montferrat stacked with obstruction or that 2 obstacles stacked together.

 

And I make it how easy I **** well please, sorry if you dislike it An analysis doesn't have to be complex to be accurate. What I said holds true : Montferrat Raiders can be used as mobile cover. Raiders are well used as escorts for larger ships, ready to pounce when an opportunity presents itself. Montferrat circling at speed 3 on a flank and around a ship circling at speed 2 is a proper flank defense.

 

It evens deters ships like the MC30 of the Gladiator by making its strafing run have to go further out from the ISD and potentially outside of black dice range. And I'd rather a MC30 kill a Raider than an ISD. If it is making a tangent approach from the front arc, both the Raider's and the ISD's front arc overlap for a punishing run, or force the MC30 to burn out of black range to avoid being punished forver during the game.

 

I can understand that you don't like the Raider, and that's cool with me. But saying that it's a worthless ship is an easy cop out

[RazelKorr 203]

 

 

Squadroncommands are obsolete due to "rogue"

 

...nope. Nope nope nope nope nope. 

 

 

Try to make a proper argument i'm ready to back this up, in the least for my own lists, i don't depend on Squadron commands for a reason. As Imperials there's little use for the command aside from jumping the activation cycle. The argument is oportunity cost and to not have to build and take squadron commands / upgrades free's up alot of points, reduces complexity in fleet commanding in a big way.

 

If you pay for the rogue word and then not use it you built an inefficient list. Non rogue ships are cheaper and more efficient when paired with squadron commands.

 

 

Squad commands will never be irrelevant if only due to them being a part of the dial. You severely over-estimate Rogue while under-estimating a well timed Squad command. 

 

In my personal Fleet I have an ISDII with a Wing Commander supporting Rhymer, Dengar, and four Firesprays. The Wing Commander means I never need to plan a Squad command, letting me effectively have two plans simultaneously. The timing this lets me abuse is obscene - I can activate the Rhymerball in response to literally anything. The two Raiders have Vet Caps to push 2 ships on demand per, not to mention the boosted comms on the ISD. You can argue that I may be better spent numerically using non-rogue ships, but you'd be wrong - then I would NEED the squad commands. In this case Rogue lets me guarantee positioning more than letting me move and shoot - if something more important takes the ISD's attention, they can still get about on their own. 

[MoffZen 760]

 

 

Squadroncommands are obsolete due to "rogue"

 

...nope. Nope nope nope nope nope. 

 

 

Try to make a proper argument i'm ready to back this up, in the least for my own lists, i don't depend on Squadron commands for a reason. As Imperials there's little use for the command aside from jumping the activation cycle. The argument is oportunity cost and to not have to build and take squadron commands / upgrades free's up alot of points, reduces complexity in fleet commanding in a big way.

 

If you pay for the rogue word and then not use it you built an inefficient list. Non rogue ships are cheaper and more efficient when paired with squadron commands.

 

 

Are you trolling ?

 

Being more efficient is being result oriented, not optimally satisfying the keywords on the cards. Paying for Rogue allows you to use other commands on your ships, true, but depriving yourself of the ability to activate during the ship phase just because you paid the points for Rogue is a stupid tactical move. I'm sorry if I'm being offensive but that's the hard turth.

 

If you refuse to use squadron command because of the Rogue keyword, then squadrons activated with squadron commands will happily chew through your Rogues that are politely waiting for the squadron phase. Or burn through the shields of a ship if your Rogues are hanging back.

Edited February 9, 2016 by MoffZen

[Norsehound 2,740]

Lancezh, thank you for articulating all the thoughts I've been having about the Raider ever since I've tried to run them. I'm the player SomeKittens mentioned, trying to run them everywhere from Beam-carrying Ordinance Expert guys flinging APTs to cheap flankers. They. Always. Fail.

 

Man, ClonTroper5 must be twitching something fierce right now.

 

It's interesting that everyone points to ClonTroper5's performance as the one shining example of Raiders being overwhelmingly good. No offense to ClonTroper5 of course, but if there were more examples of other lists and other players being just as good as Clon that use Raiders, I can believe the defenders' claims of Raider viability. One example is only an exception, not a general rule.

 

 

Every time I've played a list with raiders one of two things happen...

1) They try and close.. This leads to them being removed from the game before they get a shot off.
2) They try to flank and never get a chance to engage.

I have played 8 games against lists with one or two raiders and I've never had any of my ships fired apon by a raider. Just fighters.

 

This is exactly how my Raiders end up. I tried chasing an assault frigate after a long four-turn flanking maneuver and watched my shields vanish in one blow, and the target fly out of medium range before I could get the chance to fire. So the long-distance flanking move just allows the enemy ship to fly off and leave you flat-footed. And 44 points handed to your opponent.

 

I spoke with another player on saturday about a number of things, including the Raider. When I mentioned the idea of squadron augmentation (or squadron replacement), we both came to agree that having the same amount of points in fighters is better. This is because those fighters are not going to be facing any of the large dice pools being thrown out of capital ships right now, and will last longer. They will also do more damage.

 

Basically when you think about taking a Raider there are compelling arguments to take something else. Something better defended, something more capable, and something that can protect itself when it gets into effective range. What can the Raider do well that either another ship (like a kitted out Gladiator) or fighters (to replace the Raider) can't do better?

 

The bottom line is, we have to do expend some serious theorycrafting and example-reaching effort to prove that the Raider is viable. No other ship, except maybe the VSD, faces this problem. That so many threads keep popping up about Raider viability must mean something is wrong with the ship.

[MoffZen 760]

@Norsehound : Try playing them close (black range distance) of a larger ship, for example a VSD or an ISD, or even aggressively forward with a Glad 1. But still being an escort to another ship.

 

Even if it doesn't kill stuff, it's still going to be an annoyance that the opponent will have to deal with either by shooting the Raider, either by avoiding it and possibly outranging the nastier target.

 

Actually, now that I think about it, pairing a Raider with Gladiator is really something I ought to try in my next games...

[RazelKorr 203]

Here's an example wherein my Raiders were put to good use. Contested Outpost. He set two corvettes to try and flank through the obstacles while the MC80 and AFMKII do the heavy assault. The MC80 would up avoiding the confrontation with the ISD while the AFMKII flew directly into the two waiting Raiders. The trick was to place them last in order to capitalize on his deployment. I *could* have put them to intercept the corvettes, I *could* have swung them right in offensively, but instead they were better suited supporting each other as the AFMKII careened into range.

[Truthiness 5,696]

It's interesting that everyone points to ClonTroper5's performance as the one shining example of Raiders being overwhelmingly good. No offense to ClonTroper5 of course, but if there were more examples of other lists and other players being just as good as Clon that use Raiders, I can believe the defenders' claims of Raider viability. One example is only an exception, not a general rule.

I'd hardly say they're "overwhelmingly good." I'm just saying they can be used effectively. The reason clon's list works is because of activation count and initiative bid. It would not work with even one less activation I think. And I think a CR90 swarm would be a pretty good hard counter. That said, Clon is dominating because the Raiders he uses come in cheap enough that he has 5 ships. He ignores the fragility problem by using his speed and activation count to make sure you just can't touch the Raiders. I also don't think he would be effective without Demolisher. Again, Clon's match against JJ will be telling. It's probably the fastest and most elusive list Clon has faced.

I just refuse to underestimate Raiders anymore. I did that and got tabled 10-0 by Clon. Are they hard to use? You betcha. But you know what, so are Nebs. All of my Rebels lists have at least one.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Truthiness

[Snipafist 7,536]

 

Squadroncommands are obsolete due to "rogue"

 

...nope. Nope nope nope nope nope. 

I'll also have to agree here. Squadron commands got even better because as a general rule...

 

Commanded squadrons > Rogue squadrons > uncommanded non-Rogue squadrons

We saw an uptick in Rogues-only fleets for a little while but it quickly became apparent that Squadron-commanded X-Wings (+Jan Ors, maybe Dutch and Wedge as well) and TIEs just got the jump on them. It's not to say Rogues can't be very good (see: the Fireball), just that if anything Squadron commands are even better than they used to be now that enemy squadrons are regularly a thing.

[Amanal 2,557]

Sometimes, you just have to wait. In wave 1 the Corvette was an initiative buffer. You took one, maybe 2 and used it to make your opponent make activations he does want to.

 

From what I have seen, the Raider is not ever going to work by putting itself in to a brawl or going into a kill zone of a medium or large ship. It manages to support a Rymerball/Fireball beyond compare as with 2 AA dice it will ensure that any squadrons that attack the ball are not there for long.

 

It can also be used as a diversion, and at 44 points you can lose it and still be playing for a 10-0 game.

[Snipafist 7,536]

70 might be a bit high, i think last time i tried to run them upgraded was with overload pulse and intel officer, i will look up the rest on them i had a total close to 70 in my mind.

 

Here's the problem with Flanking with Raiders:

 

- You lose the advantage of an extremely good upgrade: XI7's rely on your ships hitting from the same side. So either you flank with everything or you are doing a very inefficient job from your mainhitters. (If you assume that the raiders complement your fleet and you use them for shipbashing.)

 

- If you do flank with everything there needs to be something to flank, to my knowledge flanking rebels is straight up not possible against most lists and flanking ISD's that turn with you is at SPD 4 very very difficult. I dont believe you will project enough damage to down reliably ISD's because they turn almost as good as Raiders despite being really large. Let's assume you do flank though successfully, then you are best case in Turn 4, more likely 5 which means 60 points times n raiders wasn't doing alot for a long time.

 

The combination of those 2 factors lead me to believe that this is all theorycrafting, i'm open to be convinced otherwise but i did not see this happen in a battle.

Yeah, Overload Pulse + Intel Officer is a much better combination on larger ships with individually more powerful attacks. I would for sure ramp it down.

 

I've been able to get flanks in with Raiders without too much trouble. It will depend on the matchup. Against Rebels, I'm often more successful at getting into front arcs of a conga line and just front arc + ramming to keep them locked in place (which is a fairly good use of the Raider, in my opinion). Otherwise you may have to play the long game to get in on a safe arc. Riding into Rebel broadsides or Imperial front arcs is a recipe for disaster.

[Norsehound 2,740]

@Norsehound : Try playing them close (black range distance) of a larger ship, for example a VSD or an ISD, or even aggressively forward with a Glad 1. But still being an escort to another ship.

 

Even if it doesn't kill stuff, it's still going to be an annoyance that the opponent will have to deal with either by shooting the Raider, either by avoiding it and possibly outranging the nastier target.

 

Actually, now that I think about it, pairing a Raider with Gladiator is really something I ought to try in my next games...

 

The way I see it, any ship with the opportunity to shoot a Raider will, and the Raider will not be able to protect itself. I don't know about you but I don't like spending 44 points on a decoy to my slightly more expensive ship.

 

I mean sure, ships cant afford to let Raiders close so they have to get target priority for a facing arc if it has to choose between two ships. But this will work only against ships that don't have gunnery teams aboard, and even then the only heavy hitter that comes to mind that can't take it is the MC80.

 

I have given thought to (and discussed about) taking a sheer swarm build with as many GSDs and RDRs as you can to gencon special your enemy to death, but this is on the supposition that they can make up their losses in lethal range with their gains. I'm not sure if that's possible, given how easy it is to punch out RDRs with 1-2 shots!

 

 

Sometimes, you just have to wait. In wave 1 the Corvette was an initiative buffer. You took one, maybe 2 and used it to make your opponent make activations he does want to.

 

From what I have seen, the Raider is not ever going to work by putting itself in to a brawl or going into a kill zone of a medium or large ship. It manages to support a Rymerball/Fireball beyond compare as with 2 AA dice it will ensure that any squadrons that attack the ball are not there for long.

 

It can also be used as a diversion, and at 44 points you can lose it and still be playing for a 10-0 game.

 

CR-90s at least have red dice and out the gate, have Mon Mothma to upgrade their defensiveness. They had evades at their maximum range, and could go to medium with Mon Mothma's assistance. With a support slot it was an attractive option to run them as long distance flankers, and they're still effective as long as the target is within the range stick. Enhanced armament was pricey but two dice on a good platform is a nice anklebiter.

 

Raider doesn't have that, because the closer it gets to the target (and the more damage it does), the more fragile it becomes.

[reegsk 742]

Just thinking about the combination of Mothma or Ackbar with CR90s makes me wonder what they might do admiral-wise to make the Raiders viable.

[Ardaedhel 10,840]

It's interesting that everyone points to ClonTroper5's performance as the one shining example of Raiders being overwhelmingly good. No offense to ClonTroper5 of course, but if there were more examples of other lists and other players being just as good as Clon that use Raiders, I can believe the defenders' claims of Raider viability. One example is only an exception, not a general rule.

There are more examples. Several. I'm not going to rehash them all here again. Clon is far from "the one shining example"--he's just the guy who's leveraged the Raider's strength the best so far. And he's done a **** good job of it.

I'd hardly say they're "overwhelmingly good." In just saying they can be used effectively. The reason clon's list works is because of activation count and initiative bid. It would not work with even one less activation I think. And I think a CR90 swarm would be a pretty good hard counter.

I can confirm both of these. He underbid me by one in our tournament game: had he not, I'm pretty confident I could've won it. And the CR90 swarm hard counters pretty well. I faced the list with my CR90B swarm and won with the Zap Brannigan gambit: "clog the alien death cannons with our wreckage."

[clontroper5 4,232]

I feel so popular these Days

[MoffZen 760]

 

@Norsehound : Try playing them close (black range distance) of a larger ship, for example a VSD or an ISD, or even aggressively forward with a Glad 1. But still being an escort to another ship.

 

Even if it doesn't kill stuff, it's still going to be an annoyance that the opponent will have to deal with either by shooting the Raider, either by avoiding it and possibly outranging the nastier target.

 

Actually, now that I think about it, pairing a Raider with Gladiator is really something I ought to try in my next games...

 

The way I see it, any ship with the opportunity to shoot a Raider will, and the Raider will not be able to protect itself. I don't know about you but I don't like spending 44 points on a decoy to my slightly more expensive ship.

 

I mean sure, ships cant afford to let Raiders close so they have to get target priority for a facing arc if it has to choose between two ships. But this will work only against ships that don't have gunnery teams aboard, and even then the only heavy hitter that comes to mind that can't take it is the MC80.

 

I have given thought to (and discussed about) taking a sheer swarm build with as many GSDs and RDRs as you can to gencon special your enemy to death, but this is on the supposition that they can make up their losses in lethal range with their gains. I'm not sure if that's possible, given how easy it is to punch out RDRs with 1-2 shots!

 

 

Which is why you run it as escort on the flanks, so that you don't attract too much flakk I never said to run it as a decoy, and I agree with you that wasting 44 points is a dumb idea.

 

The idea with that Raider is not to run it parallel to another ship just for the beauty of the maneuver, it's actually to prevent that ship from getting flanked. If there is no threat of being flanked (in the case of an 2 MC80 build for example), you can afford to run it a bit looser

 

Regarding your point about Gunnery Team, I'm seeing less and less of these because people are getting used to not be in the same arc. And even there, this is where you present the enemy with 3 targets to overload their gunnery teams, including squadrons. If the enemy is running MK2 Bs, just flank wider to get into their front arc. Obviously, flying close is a relative statement depending on the circumstances, but rest assured, the more ships an enemy has able to take Gunnery Team, the less he will have capable of owning the flanks, leaving more space for the Raider

At long range, the Raider can tank better than a CR90 thanks to the Brace and 2 Evades, then cycle shields from untargetable hull zones through an engineering command. As long as you stay at long range and take less than 4 shots, nothing should get through to the hull. Let's make it 3 Red dice base and 4 with Montferrat actually to be even fairer.

 

By placing it on the flanks, not only do you benefit from moving fast, but you also make sure that you are going to outrange most of the enemy ships. Unless you place it in a table edge with lots of ships, which is then not really a flank

 

I don't know of many things that can one hit kill a Raider at long range (it would take 6 damage and 3 accuracies, so maybe a very extremely lucky hit in a single damage from 6 red dice). 2 attacks are more of a pain, but the Raider is small enough that it can dodge arcs. Its only real bane is double arcs from other small ships like a CR90, but it can tank it unless it's at extremely close range and its Evades are useless. With a well planned engineering command (well not that hard to plan ), you can swap around the shields and it acts as a redirect.

 

In a Store Championship in France, a friend placed 1st with a 3 GSD, 3 Raider I build with Screed and ACM. That can punch above its weight no problems ! But even as a lone support ship, I think the Raider deserves more credit than it is due :

1) If it forces flankers to take a wider approach and prevents them from shooting them effectively at their real prize by removing a few dice through obstruction, then it made its points back without destroying stuff.

2) If it deters squadrons from coming too close or punishes them for doing so (along with the help of a decent fighter screen for sure, it can't do it alone), then it's made its points back

3) If it manages to sneak in to a bigger ship, it can easily push 6 dice on it in two attacks which isn't an insignificant contribution to the work of the heavy hitters : it's made its points back

 

___

 

I think people are disappointed by the Raiders because they're expecting waaaay too much out of it in terms of resilience and damage. The CR90B doesn't have a much better effective range than the Raider, and yet I see no one complaining that it sucks.

It was perhaps oversold by FFG as "the ultimate Imperial response against squadrons" or "it has amazing anti-ship capabilities", but I feel people are expecting Gladiator like anti-ship capabilities along with TIE Interceptor like anti-squadron capabilities, which the Raiders clearly don't have.

 

Much like its Rebel counterpart, it's a little support ship that is literally halfway between a CR90B and a Neb B Escort (for the AA and similar defense tokens albeit geared for surviving low amounts of fire at longer range). Its single squadron activation is good for managing Aces like Vader and Soontir Fel to help relieve the other fighters or contribute to ship damage.

 

What the Raider is not :

1) It's not a small ship hunter : it doesn't have the range for that

2) It's not a carrier : it doesn't have the activations for that (even though it's more points efficient than a Glad if you equip it with Expanded Hangars if you're looking to manage 2 fighters)

3) It's not a ship for the brawl : it doesn't have the sustain power (low hull, low shields, no redirects)

4) It's not a main line ship : it lacks red dice, which are the trademark of the main line ships

 

What it is is a cheap support ship that can help clear squadrons, send in the odd squadron to help finish off a ship of unstick the main force, it allows more board control on the flanks to funnel the enemy flankers further outside of the main fight and help jump on ships when the opportunity.

Moreover, upgrades do not define the role of a ship, except some titles to a certain extent (Demolisher is still a Gladiator even though it has a pretty game changing ability, same goes for Instigator or Relentless) but are here to expand on its existing role. Overload Pulse on a Raider for example : If you're throwing 6 to 7 dice (with a CF) at a ship in 2 attacks, you can expect that 2 defense tokens will be used to mitigate the attack. Overload Pulse just ensures that and adds 1 or 2 extra damage. Intel Officer doesn't make a ship into a token stripping machine, but furthers hampers a ship by removing its defense tokens. 

 

A fleet full of support ships might work, but it's going to require very specific conditions in order to be able to perform effectively (initiative, absolute activation advantage, buffs all around, objectives).

[Norsehound 2,740]

 

 

It's interesting that everyone points to ClonTroper5's performance as the one shining example of Raiders being overwhelmingly good. No offense to ClonTroper5 of course, but if there were more examples of other lists and other players being just as good as Clon that use Raiders, I can believe the defenders' claims of Raider viability. One example is only an exception, not a general rule.

There are more examples. Several. I'm not going to rehash them all here again. Clon is far from "the one shining example"--he's just the guy who's leveraged the Raider's strength the best so far. And he's done a **** good job of it.

 

 

From what I read here clon is the ur-example of Raiders doing well commonly referenced in in the wider Raider discussion. There are a few anecdotal accounts from users mentioning a few cases, but nothing as consistent as Clon's name being brought up. I don't for instance see, "Norse does fantastically well too with a 2 RDR 1 ISD-II build with fighters to wreck Ackbar. Here's how he runs it btw."

 

 

Moff... if you say Escort, but say to run it apart from your bigger ships? That isn't escorting, that's flanking. What is the intention here, approaching the same arc as another ship or a different one? Being in the same arc as another ship (say an ISD) means at least that Arc's one attack is taken up by shooting the Raider (So, 44 points for a distraction). Approaching in another arc (say the front), means attack one goes at the Raider while Attack 2 goes at the ISD. Am I misunderstanding you?

 

Also flank-flying might put you in the uncomfortable spot of chasing a ship you'll never shoot at, because medium-effective-only. A CR-90A can still hit an escaping target as long as it doesn't fly out of the range stick after it moves. The Raider's victim has to stay in medium range. Not to mention you're burning several turns of doing nothing to get into position... and dpeneding on activation, you fly into effective range to welcome an attack before your target flies off. You have to be careful to deploy to approach from the front of a conga line. It's not like Raiders can take engine techs to make their flanking job easier.

 

Also, I'd argue that the redirect of the CR-90 is more effective than the brace, actually. No small ship is going to survive a huge amount of damage flung at it, which is what Brace us usually used to do on mediums and heavies (into losing shields, rather than take hull damage on top of losing a shield arc or two). Redirect allows another adjacent non-facing arc to take that lethal damage so it's not facing a target with an undefended arc.

 

Any damage amount at 3 or higher is going to take off a Raider's facing shields regardless of the brace, and then it goes downhill from there. TRCs can make this happen quite easily, barring a dud red die roll that gives the attacker nothing to enhance with TRCs.

 

 

I dunno, frankly I'm starting to feel safer going back to using VSDs. At least 6 points against one arc won't kill them.

[Madaghmire 7,274]

Ok guys, here's the deal;

 

If Clon wins, the Raider is super awesome amazeballs fantastic.

 

If JJ wins, the Raider is terribad awfulsauce suckstradamus, and anyone who uses them are terrible people who should be banned for life.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Madaghmire

[LazorBeems 198]

 

You're flying it wrong, my man.  You're argument is basically that it's not a CR90 or a GSD.  Well, it's not, and flying it like one of those ships will only end in misery and defeat.

 

The RDR is a support ship.  Your argument is that it can't be a support ship because it doesn't have a Support Team slot, but that's not what really determines its role.  In fact, other than Projection Experts, none of the other Support Team cards affect other ships, so it's a misrepresentation to think that a ship needs that slot to be effective in a supporting role.  

 

The RDR is an anti-squadron support ship.  It's entirely purpose-built to deal with squadrons effectively.  Anything else it can do is secondary.  It supports bigger ships by fending off squadrons, and it's incredibly effective at it.

 

So if a list doesn't have squadrons those points are for nothing ? The strongest lists in terms of wins are double ISD lists at the moment in our area. And they have low'ish squadron support if any (50-80 points i'd wager). Also if that's true they solve a problem i normally don't have.

 

 

First, no that is not what I said.  What I said was: "Anything else it can do is secondary."  But more on that in a minute.

 

Let's assume that what you interpreted is true: the RDR is only effective against squadrons, and if your opponent has none then your RDR is useless.  In the immortal words of Fred Armisen in the immortal words of Joy Behar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF9Yn5mgrjY.  So what?  Who cares?  The Raider is a specialty ship.  In the parlance of many list-building games, it's a tech choice.  It's not meant to be viable in every list, but it should be crazy-go-nuts in the lists in which it belongs (which it is).  It exists as a piece on the far ends of the meta that can be slotted into a list to counter an overabundance of a particular strategy--in this case squadrons.  And that's perfectly okay!  In fact, it's important to have these kinds of tech choices in a healthy game.  Armada would be pretty boring if every ship was an AFMkII.

 

That said, the Raider is actually a great ship precisely because it is useful when your opponent doesn't bring squadrons.  It doesn't fall into the trap of being "too tech" because of it's secondary ability to output some damage on ships when it needs to AND it gives you an extra activation.  It's a much safer choice to bring 44 points of Raider than 44 points of TIE Interceptor because they TIEs actually are pretty useless against ships.  (As an aside, the safe choice isn't always the right choice, so don't take this as me saying RDR > 4x Int.  I'm using this as a limited comparison to illustrate a point.  )  So if you suspect that most lists you'll be facing will have squadrons, but worry that you might face a couple squad-light lists, then the RDR is a great option because you won't be as punished against that more extreme end of the meta (no squad builds).

 

We're often so quick to compare the RDR to the GDS and the CR90, but I think the RDRs closest cousin is actually one Hanson W. Solostein and his ​Millennium Falcon.   Both skirt the line between ship and squadron, with the RDR further on the ship side of the scale, and Han further on the squadron side.  Both are clearly ship or squadron, but they give some advantages of the other.  Not everyone runs Han, not everyone runs a RDR.  Again, that's perfectly fine.  Just by existing, they make the game healthier because they provide viable options to safely counter lists that exist too far in the extremes of the meta.

 

So to restate all of that with 100% more snark:  do you think John Deere riding lawn mowers are "for nothing" because some people don't have yards to mow?  Do you think chemotherapy is "for nothing" because some people don't have cancer?  You might not have a problem with squadrons, but that's not universally true.  You can't make an argument on such limited evidence and expect it to hold any weight.  There's a reason that so many people who play these types of games use the term "your mileage may vary."  What's true in one person's limited experience may not be true in another's.  And in a game where physical distance is deterministic of the types of players you'll be facing, we all have limited experience.  It's perfectly cromulent to say that you don't like the Raider, but it's a bridge too far to say that because you haven't had success with it, it's a bad ship when others have provided equally valid arguments to the contrary.

[clontroper5 4,232]

Ok guys, here's the deal;

 

If Clon wins, the Raider is super awesome amazeballs fantastic.

 

If JJ wins, the Raider is terribad awfulsauce suckstradamus, and anyone who uses them are terrible people who should be banned for life.

good thing I'm going to win then

[Blail Blerg 7,585]

I hope he wins too. But not for his sake. . My poor poor underused raiders.

[Norsehound 2,740]

I have three of them. That's part of the reason I keep trying to make them work. And why I'm so disappointed they don't seem to be...

[ianediger 1,345]

One thing I've learned in my experience running a RDR, if you try to force it to do something it doesn't want to do, ie. be a ship killer, it will kick you in the teeth for treating it badly. But, if you coax it to do something it ​wants to do, ie, anti-squad and mop-up, it will excel. I've found RDR's prefer to hang back. The RDR is a ship that takes no sh*t from the player, and if you do anything it doesn't like, it will let you know by going boom. It also helps to set up a scenario on a table and practice flying the RDR in and out of arcs, first naked, and then with different upgrades. Doing this significantly increased the survivability of my RDR, as now it wasn't getting stuck in dangerous arcs.

 

But if you really don't want your Raiders, I'll take them.

[Jondavies72 575]

Where are you coming up with roughly 70 points per Raider? It sounds like you're over-upgrading them pretty severely (unless you play a list like clontrooper does where it's all small ships and they need to get work done). I find they work best at low 50s at the highest, preferably below 50 points each.

 

Also I find argument strength suffers from abundant spelling errors. It makes people take you less seriously.

alot = a lot

alittle = a little

to = too (as in, there are too many uses of "to" instead of "too")

's = s (pluralizing)

 

I'm sorry, english is not my first language, i write to the best of my abilities. 

 

Edit: Corrected some of the mistakes i could find.

Hey, knowing it's not your first language improves the outlook. It's a lot to write in a secondary language. I assumed you were a native speaker and didn't see any evidence to the contrary. My bad.

Also, I'm still curious how much you're upgrading your Raiders. It seems like way too much. Keep them cheap is how I try to do it.

 

Every time I've played a list with raiders one of two things happen...

1) They try and close.. This leads to them being removed from the game before they get a shot off.

2) They try to flank and never get a chance to engage.

I have played 8 games against lists with one or two raiders and I've never had any of my ships fired apon by a raider. Just fighters.

I see a fair number of people fielding Raiders just kind of diving in and getting poofed. Why are you having trouble with flanking? I find it's not too bad getting into the back arc come turn 4 or so, provided you've got the big ships out front to keep the other guy's attention.

I find identifying if you need the Raider for flak or for harassment before deployment is very important. You run them differently depending on their primary duty.

[Jondavies72 575]

Must stop posting on my phone.snipafist I missed a vital word in my fist post. It should be "played against". It was not me playing the raiders but others against me.

[Rhinehard 37]

I don't have extensive experience with the Raider as i only own 1. Can someone explain to me how it is an effective anti squadron? Do you need multiples?

 

Forgetting average damage from anti squadron fire, assume every dice you roll damages and you have two raiders, what are you destroying? it's not bombers which is what i assume you took them to protect against.

 

You can't engage them for more than a turn because you activate and zip away from them.

 

Also when you do engage them where are you engaging them? Are people sending bombers unsupported on a flank or something? personally i use a squadron command to bomb the hell out of a targets bow before i unleash the main guns. How does the raider help this situation? Is it going to sit in front of an ISD to try and prevent bombing runs, because it wont live long there from my ships, let alone if i target the raider for a bombing run. (this is one of my main problems, for an anti squadron ship it cant soak up squadron fire at all with those defense tokens)

 

Soooo, whats all this use it to kill squadrons stuff about? Seems expensive for that?