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

[Lancezh 98]

Wow lots of replies to my thread over night.

 

I think everything has been said, i wont go into detail with everyone's reply as we will just be going in circles, i just want to mention that i suspect alot of armchair generalism in here as is common everywhere when it comes to miniature games. It's ok to have a differing opinion on the matter but consider that some people sunk much more time into researching this than others (doesn't mean that i'm right, maybe just that i'm more likely right). That's the only issue i'm having, it's really tiring to talk with people who clearly are coming from a point of passion rather than extensive play-experience against good oponents:

 

Nobody is trying to take your beloved toys away and i'm not sure there is an objective truth here to be found but so far not a single point has been made that made me go "hmm yeah maybe". And some people are writing overproportionally much compared to what their actual experience would cover with nice theories. I've played my fair share of Miniature Games over the years and i have to say that the Raider takes a prime spot when it comes to underwhelming units in a competitive environment. It's a fun ship, but not a good one. I've also learned over those years that theorycrafting is alot of fun but is always trumped by practical play.

 

Your meta might differ from ours, sure... i had people explain to me (and very firm at that) after having played 2 games why this and that ship is fantastic and why this and that upgrade is OP although i've played close to 100 games (ok thats a lie, maybe 50, but 100 sounds more intimidating) now and could show them in practice why it's not necessarly true. Some things are a matter of taste and some are just gimping objectively your chance of winning. I'm still convinced that someone equally or lower skilled playing against me with raiders in his list will lose much more than otherwise, this discussion has not changed my outlook on it in the slightest.

 

Those who claim firm that the raiders excels and is great at (insert random reason here) need to demonstrate not just talk to convince seasoned players like me and many others, if you care about this at all.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Lancezh

[Blail Blerg 7,585]

Whoa there. We getting a little emotional in here.

I'll add my two cents that if the darn ship had a redirect it would be much better. Like loads better. But also way similar to a gladiator.

I really wish there were some cheap ways to make them into cheap carriers.

[Lancezh 98]

Whoa there. We getting a little emotional in here.

I'll add my two cents that if the darn ship had a redirect it would be much better. Like loads better. But also way similar to a gladiator.

I really wish there were some cheap ways to make them into cheap carriers.

 

I would literally give like 10 hairs for a redirect. That would be awesome.

[Viperous 351]

This topic just has to keep going guys! I'm having so much fun just listening to you all  . 

This must be quite instructive for a lot of people and also extremely amusing for spectators like me at the same time!

 

Keep on arguing/discussing away! I'm lovin' it .

Edited February 9, 2016 by Viperous

[MoffZen 760]

 

Those who claim firm that the raiders excels and is great at (insert random reason here) need to demonstrate not just talk to convince seasoned players like me and many others, if you care about this at all.

 

Hmm, I think you made the bold statement that the Raider sucked without proper demonstration first. It's really easy claiming stuff without backing them up, then toning down people actually showing alternative ways that you refuse to listen

 

A couple of bold statements from your OP :

"The Raider lacks in both configurations just something all the time." --> Sure, and what exactly does it lack ? I have my "Demosntration Finder" app desintalled, maybe that explains why I have trouble finding a demonstration in your post.

 

"They are not good Support Ships

 

They lack Support Teams and therefore fall flat for Projection Teams, Engine Techs (engine techs are probably why they didn't receive the upgrade) etc."

 

Since when having Support Teams available makes them a good "support ship" ? More importantly, how do you feel slapping Engine Tech on a ship makes it a support ship ? I don't know, I don't feel my CR90s being more supporting by having Engine Techs, they're just faster. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Nav Team doesn't make a ship more supportive either. Engineering Team doesn't make it more supportive either.

But perhaps, as a store owner, you have access to a load of upgrade cards before us?

 

____

 

At this point, you're just trolling for the sake of trolling. One upvote for your thread though is that many people have shared interesting performances with Raiders and players can take inspiration from that.

[Rhinehard 37]

I agree that i can't give the answers you need as I only have 1 raider and not enough games using it. That's because i only want lists with first activation when I employ a raider, so I can do a hard frontal hit and run.

 

I would like to know how people have effectively used them to stop bombing wings and shred squadrons. I mean actually remove the threat not drive by a couple of damage, and how cost efficient you think they were when employed for this. 

 

Games are only 6 turns, that's not a lot of time for raiders to deal with squadrons as they don't tie them up effectively even with the 'Instigator' title. Would you say, you need fighters to engage your targets and Raiders chuck a little bit of damage on top? or are we talking swarm tactics?

 

I'm not anti raider, I just noticed peeps saying they are great escort and anti squadron and wanted to know how.

[Snipafist 7,536]

I agree that i can't give the answers you need as I only have 1 raider and not enough games using it. That's because i only want lists with first activation when I employ a raider, so I can do a hard frontal hit and run.

 

I would like to know how people have effectively used them to stop bombing wings and shred squadrons. I mean actually remove the threat not drive by a couple of damage, and how cost efficient you think they were when employed for this. 

 

Games are only 6 turns, that's not a lot of time for raiders to deal with squadrons as they don't tie them up effectively even with the 'Instigator' title. Would you say, you need fighters to engage your targets and Raiders chuck a little bit of damage on top? or are we talking swarm tactics?

 

I'm not anti raider, I just noticed peeps saying they are great escort and anti squadron and wanted to know how.

I feel like I say this every time a Raider thread comes up, but Raiders are force multipliers. They are horrible on their own and need to be coordinating their actions with the rest of your fleet. To mess up squadrons, a Raider needs a fighter screen to keep enemy squadrons pinned down and off the Raider. If you're going Raider-I with Ordnance Experts, you're getting a near-guaranteed 2 damage per attack on enemy squadrons, and anything caught in two arcs will eat a lot of damage. This is often sufficient to substantially tip the balance towards your squadrons and then the Raider can boogie out or try to stick around for round 2.

[CaribbeanNinja 6,207]

I agree that i can't give the answers you need as I only have 1 raider and not enough games using it. That's because i only want lists with first activation when I employ a raider, so I can do a hard frontal hit and run.

 

I would like to know how people have effectively used them to stop bombing wings and shred squadrons. I mean actually remove the threat not drive by a couple of damage, and how cost efficient you think they were when employed for this. 

 

Games are only 6 turns, that's not a lot of time for raiders to deal with squadrons as they don't tie them up effectively even with the 'Instigator' title. Would you say, you need fighters to engage your targets and Raiders chuck a little bit of damage on top? or are we talking swarm tactics?

 

I'm not anti raider, I just noticed peeps saying they are great escort and anti squadron and wanted to know how.

Mainly the fact that the raider 1 has two black AS die. These are very reliable to do damage. Throw on OE and it gets more reliable. This weakens squads very fast considering squads have HP from 3-7.

[megamen 332]

So, it sounds exactly like the lore for the Lancer class. It costs as much as a regular ship, but it goes boom when if fights a regular ship, but it is excellent against fighters.

It sounds horrible, but it sounds like FFG got this one perfect.

[Viperous 351]

 

I agree that i can't give the answers you need as I only have 1 raider and not enough games using it. That's because i only want lists with first activation when I employ a raider, so I can do a hard frontal hit and run.

 

I would like to know how people have effectively used them to stop bombing wings and shred squadrons. I mean actually remove the threat not drive by a couple of damage, and how cost efficient you think they were when employed for this. 

 

Games are only 6 turns, that's not a lot of time for raiders to deal with squadrons as they don't tie them up effectively even with the 'Instigator' title. Would you say, you need fighters to engage your targets and Raiders chuck a little bit of damage on top? or are we talking swarm tactics?

 

I'm not anti raider, I just noticed peeps saying they are great escort and anti squadron and wanted to know how.

Mainly the fact that the raider 1 has two black AS die. These are very reliable to do damage. Throw on OE and it gets more reliable. This weakens squads very fast considering squads have HP from 3-7.

 

 

Throw on Impetuous as well and then you can finish off whatever squadron you hadn't killed in the attack step.

 

I actually find Impetuous and Instigator work quite well together, with the Instigator engaging squadrons and the Impetuous finishing them off with its potential three squadron attacks.

 

I think maybe the Instigator card would be better if you could reduce your speed when you engage squadrons, so it could keep them engaged for longer? Just a thought

[Reinholt 1,719]

I'm not anti raider, I just noticed peeps saying they are great escort and anti squadron and wanted to know how.

 

On the topic of anti-squadron, my view is you want a Raider I + Orndance Experts. Notice the interaction:

1. On a standalone basis, a black die for anti-squadron averages .75 damage, so 2 average 1.5 damage.
2. However, with ordnance experts, which is not limited by the card to attacking a ship, you average 1.875 damage on two black dice when attacking squadrons.
3. The raider has a wide front arc.

The way I have seen one used is to lurk directly behind a Rhymer Ball, so that anyone wanting to engage the raider is in range of the ball and likely at long range of the raider or crazy enough to fly right at the ball and the Raider's guns. You jam the raider down to some very low speed (1, usually) but hold on to a nav token so it can get the hell out of dodge or reposition if needed.

 

What this means is that if anyone flies squadrons up to attack the ball, you open up on them with not just whatever anti-squadron you had, but also the raider. Thus, someone coming into that fight needs to win by more than ~2 damage per ship, otherwise the raider is going to blender whatever is there.

 

In a similar fashion, I wouldn't advise the raider as stand-alone anti-squadron for precisely the same reason - 2 damage is not enough to stop a bombing run. If you want to take a raider to push additional activations, and you support it with a squadron screen, that is workable, but as a stand-alone anti-squadron ship, it just doesn't have the punch to prevent mass bomber attacks.

 

Does that make sense?

[machinebede1 99]

I go with Ruthless Strategist over Ordinance Experts. There's already a better than average chance of dealing two damage. With Ruthless I can stack on another unavoidable damage. And if I have Impetuous which will get to throw another attack on 1 squadron which can kill anything with 5 hotpoints or less in one turn. Oh and if it's a 6pt beast throw Ruthless Strategist on it again. Yes that's lucky rolling but your guaranteed to do 2 damage and unless your really unlucky another 2 from the actual attack.

[Englishpete 1,379]

If the Raider could move, then shoot against Squadrons, it would instantly become a better anti-squadron ship.

[reegsk 742]

I faced the list with my CR90B swarm and won with the Zap Brannigan gambit: "clog the alien death cannons with our wreckage."

 

 

If you didn't cry out, "Quit exploding, you cowards!" at least once, YOU'RE WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME!

[Snipafist 7,536]

If the Raider could move, then shoot against Squadrons, it would instantly become a better anti-squadron ship.

That much I can't dispute.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see an offensive retrofit allowing something like that in the future. It would definitely improve the Raider's stock a bit and I could see using it on an ISD as well. Shame the Gladiator (notably the -II) doesn't have an offensive retrofit slot or I'd argue for that option as well.

[Englishpete 1,379]

I think that it should be an Offensive Retrofit, but be Raider only. It would add incentive to take Raiders, allowing it to other ships, would, I think be non-thematic and overpowered.

 

I would think it would be about a 6 or 7 point upgrade.

[machinebede1 99]

Well the trick is move in the squadrons and keep the Raider at speed 1 or 2. I'm trying a squadron less build for a tournament this weekend. Using an ISD 1 two Glad 1's and 2 Raider 1's initiative is the most important thing for my build. As I have to move last and first to keep my more fragile ships alive. I paired each gladiator to a Raider and have them flanking the ISD.

Edited February 9, 2016 by machinebede1

[Snipafist 7,536]

I think that it should be an Offensive Retrofit, but be Raider only. It would add incentive to take Raiders, allowing it to other ships, would, I think be non-thematic and overpowered.

 

I would think it would be about a 6 or 7 point upgrade.

Given you have no way of actually getting the card to players except through upcoming wave 3 or later releases which are definitely not Raiders, that is not a workable solution because including a Raider-only card with a non-Raider ship seems rather silly.

 

If you want to discuss this any further, though, it would probably be best to make a separate chain so we stop clogging up this one.

[TheEasternKing 607]

The only real use I have gotten from Raiders, is using them as area denial ships.

 

Basically flew them to the side/rear of my ISDII it made the opposite player think real hard about boosting past the ISDII front arc to get into it's side arcs, because it meant being in a double raider arc at the end of its activation, it also allowed me to obliterate any squadrons that came near to my ISDII.

 

Unless you design your entire fleet around it (Looking at you Clon) they are not supposed to be out in front, and this is a pretty drastic change to standard imperial play, so of course it is causing a lot of headaches for people, they are used to ships that can just charge forwards...that should charge forwards to get them front arcs into play.

 

I have used a Imp II, Raider I x2, and Glad I list, and a VSD II, Raider I x3, and a Glad I list, flown right it really chokes your opponents speed factors, all of a sudden they have the choice of flying into the front arc of your main ship, or your escorts, and trust me, a double arc with a con fire order is nothing to sniff at, 2blue+2black, then 1blue+2black with Screed and APTs, they will mess things up, BUT you have to let things fly into range of them, not the other way around (again unless you build a fleet like Clon) and this is what is so counter intuitive to Imperial players.

 

It is no good bemoaning the low hps, or the lack of redirect, they are cheap, and they fill a much needed niche for Imperials, at speed 2 they get 2 and 2 yaws, and they excel at anti squadron, something the other imperial ships aren't particularly great at, mainly due to the fact your other Imperial ships should be using their greater offensive capability against ships, and never ever look down on cheap extra activations, not having to move your ISD into range of other ships, while they are out of its range can be a game changer, and that only happens when you have plenty of ships to activate.

 

Both games, I never once had the situation arise where I had 1/2/3 Rebel ships inside my Imp II side/rear arcs, something that is usually standard fare, with the speed and maneuverability of Rebel ships, because with that double arc, or even front arc, you have the capability to kill an MC30 or a Corvette at PBR, and they will not fly willingly into it, meaning your main ship ain't getting a round of double arc to its rear.

Edited February 9, 2016 by TheEasternKing

[MoffZen 760]

Excellent points shortened

 

Yes, this is exactly the strength of the Raider. Sneaky area denial and board control.

[Lancezh 98]

 

I think that it should be an Offensive Retrofit, but be Raider only. It would add incentive to take Raiders, allowing it to other ships, would, I think be non-thematic and overpowered.

 

I would think it would be about a 6 or 7 point upgrade.

Given you have no way of actually getting the card to players except through upcoming wave 3 or later releases which are definitely not Raiders, that is not a workable solution because including a Raider-only card with a non-Raider ship seems rather silly.

 

If you want to discuss this any further, though, it would probably be best to make a separate chain so we stop clogging up this one.

 

 

Shiptitles

[ovinomanc3r 4,436]

How different if Montferrat would work with squadrons too XD

What is the Clon fleet everybody talk about? I can't find it

[TheEasternKing 607]

How different if Montferrat would work with squadrons too XD

What is the Clon fleet everybody talk about? I can't find it

 

copy pasted for you :

 

+ Gladiator Star Destroyer (98pts) +

Gladiator I-Class Star Destroyer (98pts) [Engine Techs (8pts), Expanded Launchers (13pts), Intel Officer (7pts), Ordnance Experts (4pts), •Demolisher (10pts)]

+ Raider Corvette (273pts) +

Raider I-Class Corvette (68pts) [Expanded Launchers (13pts), Intel Officer (7pts), Ordnance Experts (4pts)]

Raider I-Class Corvette (68pts) [Expanded Launchers (13pts), Intel Officer (7pts), Ordnance Experts (4pts)]

Raider I-Class Corvette (80pts) [Assault Proton Torpedoes (5pts), •Admiral Montferrat (5pts), •Admiral Screed (26pts)]

Raider I-Class Corvette (57pts) [Assault Proton Torpedoes (5pts), Ordnance Experts (4pts), •Instigator (4pts)]

+ Squadrons (16pts) +

TIE Fighter Squadron (8pts)

TIE Fighter Squadron (8pts)

[clontroper5 4,232]

How different if Montferrat would work with squadrons too XD

What is the Clon fleet everybody talk about? I can't find it

you may read about my exploits in this thread:https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/196872-armada-world-cup-vassal-tournament/

And here,

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/198792-armada-world-cup-vassal-replay-files/

[Snipafist 7,536]

 

 

I think that it should be an Offensive Retrofit, but be Raider only. It would add incentive to take Raiders, allowing it to other ships, would, I think be non-thematic and overpowered.

 

I would think it would be about a 6 or 7 point upgrade.

Given you have no way of actually getting the card to players except through upcoming wave 3 or later releases which are definitely not Raiders, that is not a workable solution because including a Raider-only card with a non-Raider ship seems rather silly.

 

If you want to discuss this any further, though, it would probably be best to make a separate chain so we stop clogging up this one.

Shiptitles

This has exactly the same problem I already mentioned. Why would they include Raider title upgrades in a non-Raider ship pack? They wouldn't.