Agreed on ALL points.

What like expose on a deci?

Not really the same thing, if you fly Kenkirk for example then expose effects him.

Any crew that causes stress to the ship it's on is unlikely to be allowed on a epic ship. Not saying it will happen, just I expect it to be that way.

What like expose on a deci?

Not really the same thing, if you fly Kenkirk for example then expose effects him.

Any crew that causes stress to the ship it's on is unlikely to be allowed on a epic ship. Not saying it will happen, just I expect it to be that way.

As far as I know no single card has ever been stated as not being able to put on a ship that has a slot for it. I seriously doubt FFG would start doing that, it adds an unnecessary level of complexity, every time you build a fleet you have to start checking to see if all the cards you've selected are legal.

Its not like Fleet Officer is super op, it still takes up the one of two actions the Raider gets, and the Raider probably wants to reinforce every turn its in range of enemies. That leaves no room for TL or other potential offensive buffs.

Fleet Officer on a Lambda is only taking up 25ish points of a 300pt list to use, while on a Raider it could be using the action from a 150 point ship.

All in all I very seriously doubt FFG will ban any card combination.

Navigator AFAIK is still not epic shippable.

For a time nor was Luke and Gunner, so yeah this is not without precedent.

Navigator was the most OP card ever for a corvette.

As far as I know no single card has ever been stated as not being able to put on a ship that has a slot for it.

Naviator is not allowed on a Epic ship, Gunner and Luke were both banned from epic ships. So yes they have actually done this already.

I stand corrected. But Navigator makes sense to be banned as it is incredible on a huge ship. Fleet Officer is good, but not on the same level as Navigator would be. We'll see though.

I stand corrected. But Navigator makes sense to be banned as it is incredible on a huge ship.

Gunner is actually sorta pointless on a Epic ship, but that was banned originally as well. FFG clearly is taking a "err on the side of caution" approach.

But how powerful it is doesn't IMO matter, what matters is that you can ignore the cost of an upgrade because the cost isn't something that affects that ship. I fully expect to see the next epic rules to ban all crew and other upgrades that cause stress for epic ships.

I'm not speaking about my preference here, I'm just saying what I expect FFG to do.

I'll be surprised if they do anything to restrict Fleet Officer. It's only one point cheaper than the Dodanna's Pride title on the CR-90, takes up one of your two crew slots, and is limited to passing out Focus tokens instead of two free actions of any type.

The loss of the Target Lock isn't that big of a deal when he has Colonel Jendon in ST-321 sitting behind him.

As a side note: I only just realized that the Raider has fewer crew slots than the Decimator.

How does the main gun interact with 'Gunner'?

Gunner says you can perform no more attacks this turn. That means you couldn't spend the 2 points of energy to get a second attack.

You could use it get a 3rd primary attack, if the 2nd attack misses. 5 points incase that 2nd attack you spent 2 energy on missed seems like a poor choice IMO at least.

Maybe!

I can see kitting out a Raider as a mega support ship, with fleet officer etc. In that case, I can see using gunner, and never spend the 2 energy on the 2nd attack. I'd also _not_ be taking any hardpoint secondary weapons, if I did that.

I'll be surprised if they do anything to restrict Fleet Officer. It's only one point cheaper than the Dodanna's Pride title on the CR-90, takes up one of your two crew slots, and is limited to passing out Focus tokens instead of two free actions of any type.

The loss of the Target Lock isn't that big of a deal when he has Colonel Jendon in ST-321 sitting behind him.

As a side note: I only just realized that the Raider has fewer crew slots than the Decimator.

Its the same as the CR-90. Only difference is the 90 has 1 of the crew slots on the fore. Makes sense that all the majority of the crew slots on on the aft where the bridge is.

So besides the firing arcs. They switched the upgrade slots putting more hardpoints in the back, then they gave it one more shields on each side and up the points to 100. Instead of 1 energy to increase the attack it is 2 energy to make another attack.

Does anyone see that the fore card gives a 4 attack symbol without a turret circle around it? I'm not sure either way, my monitor doesn't allow to check at the moment.

If it's not a turret attack, do you think it'll only be able to fire with the fore arc? Hard point firing with their respective section's arc in addition.

If it's not a turret attack, do you think it'll only be able to fire with the fore arc?

Yeah I'm assuming so. There's no turret marking on the base card for the Raider, but it has a really big arc.

Does anyone see that the fore card gives a 4 attack symbol without a turret circle around it? I'm not sure either way, my monitor doesn't allow to check at the moment.

If it's not a turret attack, do you think it'll only be able to fire with the fore arc? Hard point firing with their respective section's arc in addition.

Yeah, it's been my understanding that this thing doesn't have a turret, but compensates for it by having such a wide firing arc relative to other ships.

I also want to know how we're supposed to measure range with this. It's the first ship in the game where the firing arc doesn't actually form a triangle. It's shaped like home plate in baseball. When measuring distance to a ship that's too the side, do you measure from the angle, or do you still do closest-to-closest?

As far as I know no single card has ever been stated as not being able to put on a ship that has a slot for it.

Naviator is not allowed on a Epic ship, Gunner and Luke were both banned from epic ships. So yes they have actually done this already.

If your opponent wants you to follow the epic (tournament) rules (i.e. the exceptions regarding Biggs and Navigator) in a scenario like the escape from Hoth, then you might also consider having all huge ships start wth maximum energy. It's only fair...

I also want to know how we're supposed to measure range with this. It's the first ship in the game where the firing arc doesn't actually form a triangle. It's shaped like home plate in baseball. When measuring distance to a ship that's too the side, do you measure from the angle, or do you still do closest-to-closest?

You measure range the same as any other ship: closest point to closest point within the firing arc. It's not so different from turrets.

Fleet officer is a good card on a Raider, but it's not overpowered. The Raider gets 2 actions per turn, and Fleet officer takes up 1 of them. That's a large drawback. It's marginally better on the Raider than a lot of other ships, but not so terribly much better. Once you put a Fleet Officer on a Raider, you start thinking of it as a command ship, rather than as an attack ship. That's a very different loadout, with some interesting ramifications. Owing to that, why bother restricting the card?

As far as I know, right now, the only card that is errated out of playability on a Huge ship is the Navigator, as it was far too powerful for far too little drawback. I don't think Fleet Officer falls into that same category.

Also! Fleet Officer was designed while they were working on the Raider. It would have been easy enough for them to slap "Small and Large Imperial Ships Only" on the card. Since they didn't, I'm going to assume that was a choice and not an oversight.

I already made its arcs in Vassal a few weeks ago, assuming CR90 size.

fore only, which goes up to range 5, to account for all possible hardpoints:

And with both arcs on, fore and aft:

That's what I was wondering about, and saves me from trying to jury-rig something in Illustrator when I got home tonight. Thanks!

It seems like an ideal setup would be an Ion Cannon Battery in the fore, and a pair of Quads in the aft, along with a Tactician. Unlike the CR-90, this one should be able to just go to town against small ships. You'd only really be vulnerable from behind or within range 1 of the fore section, but a fighter moving within range 1 of a huge ship's Fore section risks becoming a bug on the windshield.

I've had a lot of success with my CR-90 using Single Turbolasers. Initially I just dismissed them as being crap. I played in an Epic tournament and brought one along for targeting other huge ships. I found they were actually really useful against small ships if I picked my targets correctly. Since then, I always bring one along even when I know there won't be another huge ship to shoot at.

The most important thing the Single Turbolasers offers if the free focus effect. Coupled with a Target Lock you get a nice consistent damage output. Then it's simply a matter of choosing a good target. I honestly worry less about shooting at low agility ships than I' do looking for a target without a focus token. Green dice are wildly inconsistent and over the course of a game I've found I can get lots of damage done with a Single Turbolaser. In many ways it's more effective than the main gun.

The side arcs on the CR-90 are pretty workable with some practice. It looks like a broadside from a CR-90 will be able to put more shots at a target than a head on Raider.

I know that Etahn Abaht and Roark Garnet are the CR-90s best friends. What imperial ships will benefit the Raider the most?

Roark making the corvette shot at 12 makes the raider cry =/

I guess howlrunner can swarm tactic it to 8 but thats no where near as good.

Kagi would be an amazing sidekick for the raider if he had an EPT to swarm it, but i guess the target lock soaking still helps

Do hardpoints count as secondary weapons for Jonus's reroll?

A few black squad ties with draw their fire to soak a crit or two

Navigator AFAIK is still not epic shippable.

For a time nor was Luke and Gunner, so yeah this is not without precedent.

Navigator was the most OP card ever for a corvette.

I'm curious why certain cards are considered OP on an otherwise UP ship. Why not allow their OPness to make the UP ship less UP.

(Also, why does using acronyms like OP and UP make me feel like a ******?)

I'm actually not sure about the corvette shooting at PS12. In order to secure all the favorable conditions to a CR90's offensive output, you need to shoot at token-less ships, meaning you'll have to have other higher PS ship shoot at them first.

The arcs on the raider have better overall coverage, but the arcs on the corvette have more overlap.

The raider also has forward arc; that's really important for its combat maneuvers. It can engage head-on, while the corvette has always had to try for broadsides, which is more awkward.

The greater overall coverage, and the 2-4 primary weapon range should help the raider deal with fighters. Instead of engaging via broadside, which is inherently risky (due to the ineffectiveness of reinforce actions), the Raider can engage head-on, reinforcing its front section against enemy attacks.

In a fight between a Raider and a Corvette, the Corvette will have significant first strike capability as the Raider closes if the corvette has a broadside shot at the Raider. But if the Raider closes to range 2, it enters the 'donut' for the CR90's main guns and any turbolasers.

If the Raider turns out to be very effective against fighters (possibly due to epic-only crew or team options), CR90s outfitted with turbolasers may be a hard counter to anti-fighter Raiders.

Because acronyms contribute to the dumbing down and overall laziness of the human race?