I have a couple of games under my belt now with the Raider and I'm growing a little concerned at how easily these ships die. I own three, both games were running three Raiders using a combination of two Assault Proton Torpedoes and an NK-7 on backup.

I dunno, it's like every time they met the enemy they are either dead or at one health point. Especially against something like MC30s... I've been trying to flank, but it seems I keep ending up in the path of the enemy and getting steamrolled.

My concern is this: They aren't making up the points that I've invested into them. For a list with 3 Raiders, an ISD, and a cloud of fighters.. the Raiders dying early leaves me with an ISD and nothing else to counter my opponent with.

I dunno, I thought these were manned missiles but are they more like a 45-ish point boulder you catapult at your enemies to do as much damage as they can? Should I use them more as speed 2 AA escorts for my Star Destroyers? How are other people seeing success with their Raiders?

Norse, I'm going to try using a double Raider build in my next few casual games and see what happens. They're flimsy, but so is the MC30c and the CR90 and even the Gladiator in the current meta. I think they can work but probably need a bigger threat to protect them from instant doom.

What's funny is, I've had the opposite experience with my Raiders.

My tactics have involved, predominantly, an ISD, a Demolisher, and two Raiders, along with a wave of TIE-Fighters. I use Admiral Ozzel, as his ability is by far the most beneficial to this very fast list.

My ISD begins the game at speed 1, with a navigate command set in place. He'll begin at the center of the field, ready to move to engage the main part of the enemy fleet straight on. In essence, it taunts the enemy into having to take this threat head-on. Leaving an Imperial Star Destroyer alone is suicide, so they have to face it. The two Raiders, loaded with Expanded Launchers, flank from one side, and the Demolisher from the other.

The ISD speeds up to 3 on the first turn. Most people don't expect it, and don't think of a Star Destroyer as being so fast. With that threat looming in their face for next turn, they often scramble to prepare for it. This is perfect for letting the smaller ships flank. When the next turn comes, the smaller ships drop from speed 4 (raiders) and 3 (Demo) to 2 and 1, giving them exceptional maneuverability. This is really crucial for not only lining up your perfect shot, but also for putting yourself where your opponent has the worst chance of hitting you hard (MC80 front-arcs, for instance, are a great place to sit a Demo and double-arc it, then let it crash into you.)

People do not expect Raiders to be so dangerous. But, when that Raider is sitting in prime position, and your opponent realizes it's gonna toss out 3 Blues (2 base, 1 Concentrate Fire), and 4 Blacks, it really disrupts their mindset. By then, the Raiders have probably done a significant amount of damage. I've had one Raider completely off a Nebulon from full health to dead in one shot.

My Raiders tend to have the following build:

Raider I: 61 pts

Base- 44 pts

Expanded Launchers- 13 pts

Ordnance Experts- 4 pts

Expanded Launchers may seem expensive, but I love how threatening it makes them. Ordnance Experts is also extremely good, as it helps not only the Raider's ship attacks, but it can also be used to re-roll those two black dice for anti-squadron. Extremely reliable AA damage. You can also swap the Expanded Launchers for ACMs. Much cheaper, but a bit riskier, since you've only got 2 black dice from your front. Even with re-rolls, you're at a coin flip to get that good crit roll you need.

The Raider is the TIE Interceptor of Armada. It is fast and dies very quick.

I have also one-shotted a neb-B with the expanded launchers / ordinance experts raider, courtesy of the 'hyperspace assault' mission. When you roll 2 accuracies with 3 blue dice and isolate both braces.... that is when you know the gods are smiling down upon you.

I also really hammered a Nebulon-B but it limped away with a single hitpoint If I had ACM it would have died. Either case I am using several Raider heavy builds that have done alright, even against the big guys. I have been determined to get a good result out of these ships. Note activation order and maneuver has played a huge part in my Raider's success over the last 10 games or so. I generally find that going second combined with some well thought maneuvers will put these guys in a great fire solution, and Screed makes sure it hurts.

The later list led by Ozzel works close with its Tie Advanced to make sure Rebel fighters are mitgated and tied up longer then they want to be. Each Raider-II pairs with a couple Tie Advanced and works up a flank, while the Raider-I and remaining fighters (Inc. Vader/Fett) stick close to the Victory-II on slow approach to the enemy. I originally used an ISD-I in this list, but I feel the Victory-II allowed my squadron balance to be better worked on. It is important to point out that in my meta, wave 2 has made squadrons a great deal more common to see in numbers 7+ in a fleet.

Both lists use the Raider's single command dial fexability and perk to take expanded hangers to coordinate my lists fighters. This takes the stress of my larger ship to concentrate on killing enemy ships. Generally in Either case, the Ackbar conga line only functions when it gets to stay in a line. One Raider jammed into the nose of the line essentially causes a traffic jam that forces them to break up or collide. Either way it works fro me. And sice my little ships is just as good at being a roadblock as an MC80, the trade is worth it.

Faction: Galactic Empire
Points: 396/400

Commander: Admiral Screed

Assault Objective: Precision Strike
Defense Objective: Hyperspace Assault
Navigation Objective: Superior Positions

[ flagship ] Gladiator I-Class Star Destroyer (56 points)
- Admiral Screed ( 26 points)
- Insidious ( 3 points)
- Ordnance Experts ( 4 points)
- Engine Techs ( 8 points)
- Expanded Launchers ( 13 points)

Raider-I Class Corvette (44 points)
- Expanded Hangar Bay ( 5 points)
- Assault Proton Torpedoes ( 5 points)

Raider-I Class Corvette (44 points)
- Expanded Hangar Bay ( 5 points)
- Assault Proton Torpedoes ( 5 points)

Raider-I Class Corvette (44 points)
- Expanded Hangar Bay ( 5 points)
- Assault Concussion Missiles ( 7 points)

Raider-I Class Corvette (44 points)
- Expanded Hangar Bay ( 5 points)
- Assault Concussion Missiles ( 7 points)

6 TIE Bomber Squadrons ( 54 points)
1 JumpMaster 5000 ( 12 points)

Fleet created with Armada Warlords

OR

Faction: Galactic Empire
Points: 399/400

Commander: Admiral Ozzel

Assault Objective: Most Wanted
Defense Objective: Hyperspace Assault
Navigation Objective: Superior Positions

Raider-I Class Corvette (44 points)
- Impetuous ( 4 points)
- Director Isard ( 3 points)
- Ruthless Strategists ( 4 points)

Raider-II Class Corvette (48 points)
- Expanded Hangar Bay ( 5 points)

Raider-II Class Corvette (48 points)
- Expanded Hangar Bay ( 5 points)

[ flagship ] Victory II-Class Star Destroyer (85 points)
- Admiral Ozzel ( 20 points)
- Warlord ( 8 points)
- Gunnery Team ( 7 points)
- Quad Laser Turrets ( 5 points)
- XI7 Turbolasers ( 6 points)

5 TIE Advanced Squadrons ( 60 points)
1 Darth Vader ( 21 points)
1 Boba Fett ( 26 points)

Fleet created with Armada Warlords

Y'see. Here's my problem. When my opponents feed me an ISD for fish bait... they become fish food. I have blasted SO many ISDs away.

I really do want to see how the Raider is supposed to block. That would be awesome. But losing your ISD is tough to come back from.

Y'see. Here's my problem. When my opponents feed me an ISD for fish bait... they become fish food. I have blasted SO many ISDs away.

I really do want to see how the Raider is supposed to block. That would be awesome. But losing your ISD is tough to come back from.

I don't ever want to hear you admit this again.

It's demoralizing.

Y'see. Here's my problem. When my opponents feed me an ISD for fish bait... they become fish food. I have blasted SO many ISDs away.

I really do want to see how the Raider is supposed to block. That would be awesome. But losing your ISD is tough to come back from.

I don't ever want to hear you admit this again.

It's demoralizing.

My utmost apologies.

I'm working on my imperial play now. :/.

I tend to lead and trail with my Raiders as the ISD and Fireball trundle by and make a mess of things. This has worked out well for me so far - I usually lose the lead, but it is always to stall them into the ISD's ideal ranges before the trailer zips in and spams *more* ACMs.

What's funny is, I've had the opposite experience with my Raiders.

My tactics have involved, predominantly, an ISD, a Demolisher, and two Raiders, along with a wave of TIE-Fighters. I use Admiral Ozzel, as his ability is by far the most beneficial to this very fast list.

My ISD begins the game at speed 1, with a navigate command set in place. He'll begin at the center of the field, ready to move to engage the main part of the enemy fleet straight on. In essence, it taunts the enemy into having to take this threat head-on. Leaving an Imperial Star Destroyer alone is suicide, so they have to face it. The two Raiders, loaded with Expanded Launchers, flank from one side, and the Demolisher from the other.

The ISD speeds up to 3 on the first turn. Most people don't expect it, and don't think of a Star Destroyer as being so fast. With that threat looming in their face for next turn, they often scramble to prepare for it. This is perfect for letting the smaller ships flank. When the next turn comes, the smaller ships drop from speed 4 (raiders) and 3 (Demo) to 2 and 1, giving them exceptional maneuverability. This is really crucial for not only lining up your perfect shot, but also for putting yourself where your opponent has the worst chance of hitting you hard (MC80 front-arcs, for instance, are a great place to sit a Demo and double-arc it, then let it crash into you.)

People do not expect Raiders to be so dangerous. But, when that Raider is sitting in prime position, and your opponent realizes it's gonna toss out 3 Blues (2 base, 1 Concentrate Fire), and 4 Blacks, it really disrupts their mindset. By then, the Raiders have probably done a significant amount of damage. I've had one Raider completely off a Nebulon from full health to dead in one shot.

My Raiders tend to have the following build:

Raider I: 61 pts

Base- 44 pts

Expanded Launchers- 13 pts

Ordnance Experts- 4 pts

Expanded Launchers may seem expensive, but I love how threatening it makes them. Ordnance Experts is also extremely good, as it helps not only the Raider's ship attacks, but it can also be used to re-roll those two black dice for anti-squadron. Extremely reliable AA damage. You can also swap the Expanded Launchers for ACMs. Much cheaper, but a bit riskier, since you've only got 2 black dice from your front. Even with re-rolls, you're at a coin flip to get that good crit roll you need.

I run something similar. The raider may not do damage but it has some big scare factor.

I like Wes' lists - both very interesting layouts compared to what I've been kicking around so far.

By the way does anyone else think the attack team slot is very spoiled for choice? Its almost impossible to ignore gunnery teams, but flight controllers or ruthless strategists would also go great on the Victory 2 in Wes second list.

I do think the weapons team slot has quite a few options, but I went with what I feel the Vics primary role in this fleet would be. Killing Ships There is no reason why flight controllers wouldn't be as equally useful in a more aggressive fighter strategy though.

I freely admit I suck at raiders. After a few games of practice, I just last night managed to use a pair of overload pulse raiders to set up an ISD double tap for the first time.

Ran my two raiders up into a Neb B gun line, pulsed both, then gunnery team front-arced both Nebs to cinders. First time ever out of 4 attempts at the strat.

They are not forgiving thats for sure. I have to go get 2 more for my Vader fleet.

AT this point we really need a deployment and movement map for Imperial ships and espeicially the VSD and Raider against the two boogeyman lists: Ackbar conga lines and mass squadrons.

That will be hard because both lists have a tremendous amount of versatility and flexibility in not only their deployment but reactions.

One reason why this game is much different than X-Wing. Reactions to movement are vastly different

There's also the additional layer conferred by the choice of objectives. Minefields is the most obvious objective that can dictate movement patterns (I tried a conga line that clipped the edge of a minefield yesterday, just to see if I could do it... and I now know I can do it, and don't ever want to do it again...), but any objective that scores based on positioning (Intel Sweep, Dangerous Territory, Contested Outpost, and Fire Lanes) has the potential to impact where your opponent will be. And then there's Hyperspace Assault which completely screws positioning planning (who in the normal course of human events plans for a full-health Ackbar-powered AFII to be behind them on turn 3?). So that's 6 of 12 objectives right there that affect how a generic fleet could make its approach. Add the Bomber-specific objectives (Superior Positions and, to a lesser extent, Precision Strike, since PS isn't dependent on a particular attack trajectory), and that's fully 2/3 of the objectives that can impact what your opponent's "ideal" position will be. Add your opponent's number of ships, upgrade selections, generic obstacle placements, etc., and the variables only mount higher.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if there's any general thoughts/trends that other players are seeing in their games that could cross over broadly (like Viratin's speed and deployment suggestions above). But there's any number of factors that could impact ideal positioning in this game, only some of which are factors that a single player can control.

AT this point we really need a deployment and movement map for Imperial ships and espeicially the VSD and Raider against the two boogeyman lists: Ackbar conga lines and mass squadrons.

That will be hard because both lists have a tremendous amount of versatility and flexibility in not only their deployment but reactions.

One reason why this game is much different than X-Wing. Reactions to movement are vastly different

There's also the additional layer conferred by the choice of objectives. Minefields is the most obvious objective that can dictate movement patterns (I tried a conga line that clipped the edge of a minefield yesterday, just to see if I could do it... and I now know I can do it, and don't ever want to do it again...), but any objective that scores based on positioning (Intel Sweep, Dangerous Territory, Contested Outpost, and Fire Lanes) has the potential to impact where your opponent will be. And then there's Hyperspace Assault which completely screws positioning planning (who in the normal course of human events plans for a full-health Ackbar-powered AFII to be behind them on turn 3?). So that's 6 of 12 objectives right there that affect how a generic fleet could make its approach. Add the Bomber-specific objectives (Superior Positions and, to a lesser extent, Precision Strike, since PS isn't dependent on a particular attack trajectory), and that's fully 2/3 of the objectives that can impact what your opponent's "ideal" position will be. Add your opponent's number of ships, upgrade selections, generic obstacle placements, etc., and the variables only mount higher.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if there's any general thoughts/trends that other players are seeing in their games that could cross over broadly (like Viratin's speed and deployment suggestions above). But there's any number of factors that could impact ideal positioning in this game, only some of which are factors that a single player can control.

Nailed it!

On a side note, I am actually surprised that people thought the Raider would be more survivable. It is after all a corvette and I have tons of CR90's shot out from under me which is why I did not use them a lot.

Survival is for the weak!!!!

So, 3 Raiders and a Home One walk into a bar, one Raider limps out.

My CRs survive. Redirect is an awesome tool. With evade and being able to fire red at long range.

On a side note, I am actually surprised that people thought the Raider would be more survivable. It is after all a corvette and I have tons of CR90's shot out from under me which is why I did not use them a lot.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my most common foe's CR-90s tend to last most, if not all of the game. I suspect it is the differences between the factions. The long range dice of the CR-90 makes it a good ship to harass flanks while the short range focus of Imperial ships means if I want to kill it I have to devote significant assets to chasing it down, and there are bigger "fish" to fry. Going in to wave 2, I suspect I (and others) expected the same sort of results from the raider BECAUSE they are both corvettes, but the Raider's lack of red dice means it has to get in close to the enemy, and I think we haven't fully processed the different tactics to let us do that yet.

I think that the Raider would do a lot better without Ackbar running around. The problem is that you typically can only stay out of the side-arcs usually for one turn before you accidently catch a corner on that whale's side-arc, then its game over because you were so close to begin with. Having only one brace sucks!!

AT this point we really need a deployment and movement map for Imperial ships and espeicially the VSD and Raider against the two boogeyman lists: Ackbar conga lines and mass squadrons.

That will be hard because both lists have a tremendous amount of versatility and flexibility in not only their deployment but reactions.

One reason why this game is much different than X-Wing. Reactions to movement are vastly different

There's also the additional layer conferred by the choice of objectives. Minefields is the most obvious objective that can dictate movement patterns (I tried a conga line that clipped the edge of a minefield yesterday, just to see if I could do it... and I now know I can do it, and don't ever want to do it again...), but any objective that scores based on positioning (Intel Sweep, Dangerous Territory, Contested Outpost, and Fire Lanes) has the potential to impact where your opponent will be. And then there's Hyperspace Assault which completely screws positioning planning (who in the normal course of human events plans for a full-health Ackbar-powered AFII to be behind them on turn 3?). So that's 6 of 12 objectives right there that affect how a generic fleet could make its approach. Add the Bomber-specific objectives (Superior Positions and, to a lesser extent, Precision Strike, since PS isn't dependent on a particular attack trajectory), and that's fully 2/3 of the objectives that can impact what your opponent's "ideal" position will be. Add your opponent's number of ships, upgrade selections, generic obstacle placements, etc., and the variables only mount higher.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if there's any general thoughts/trends that other players are seeing in their games that could cross over broadly (like Viratin's speed and deployment suggestions above). But there's any number of factors that could impact ideal positioning in this game, only some of which are factors that a single player can control.

Nailed it!

On a side note, I am actually surprised that people thought the Raider would be more survivable. It is after all a corvette and I have tons of CR90's shot out from under me which is why I did not use them a lot.

I agree that one should not expect raiders not to explode - but the CR90 is arguably more survivable bareboned, and can be customized to a higher degree to fit the job. The raider, other than maybe a single one for activation bid and harassing is just not bringing anything to the table imps can build on, contrary to a CR90 who is still viable in multiples. Especially the 2xevade, brace tokens are killing it for me on a close-range ship.

On a side note, I am actually surprised that people thought the Raider would be more survivable. It is after all a corvette and I have tons of CR90's shot out from under me which is why I did not use them a lot.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my most common foe's CR-90s tend to last most, if not all of the game. I suspect it is the differences between the factions. The long range dice of the CR-90 makes it a good ship to harass flanks while the short range focus of Imperial ships means if I want to kill it I have to devote significant assets to chasing it down, and there are bigger "fish" to fry. Going in to wave 2, I suspect I (and others) expected the same sort of results from the raider BECAUSE they are both corvettes, but the Raider's lack of red dice means it has to get in close to the enemy, and I think we haven't fully processed the different tactics to let us do that yet.

This exactly. Lyraeus, I don't know why you think so, but the Raider and CR are completely different on terms of engagement zones and survivability.

Raider problem it's defense tokens. Double brace double evade plus 4-5 pts. Or double brace and evade will have made it much more survivable.

Also it's close range weapons are dangerous to a low hull long range defense combo. With double brace and evade will have been a fine ship. Nebulon has the double brace, evade combo and it's killable.

On a side note, I am actually surprised that people thought the Raider would be more survivable. It is after all a corvette and I have tons of CR90's shot out from under me which is why I did not use them a lot.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my most common foe's CR-90s tend to last most, if not all of the game. I suspect it is the differences between the factions. The long range dice of the CR-90 makes it a good ship to harass flanks while the short range focus of Imperial ships means if I want to kill it I have to devote significant assets to chasing it down, and there are bigger "fish" to fry. Going in to wave 2, I suspect I (and others) expected the same sort of results from the raider BECAUSE they are both corvettes, but the Raider's lack of red dice means it has to get in close to the enemy, and I think we haven't fully processed the different tactics to let us do that yet.

This exactly. Lyraeus, I don't know why you think so, but the Raider and CR are completely different on terms of engagement zones and survivability.

The only real bonus the CR90 has over the Raider is as I called it before it was released is the fact that Mon Mothma exists.

The CR90 fits one major role and that is a long range PitA but other than that it's not spectacular. If you know how to fly against them, they go boom.

The Raider is a strong anti-squadron force, even more so than the Nebulon-B so it fills it's main role really well. I have a feeling however that many are using it like a CR90 and for those that have any extensive experience with the CR90 B know that it can only survive so long before it goes boom.

On a side note, I am actually surprised that people thought the Raider would be more survivable. It is after all a corvette and I have tons of CR90's shot out from under me which is why I did not use them a lot.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my most common foe's CR-90s tend to last most, if not all of the game. I suspect it is the differences between the factions. The long range dice of the CR-90 makes it a good ship to harass flanks while the short range focus of Imperial ships means if I want to kill it I have to devote significant assets to chasing it down, and there are bigger "fish" to fry. Going in to wave 2, I suspect I (and others) expected the same sort of results from the raider BECAUSE they are both corvettes, but the Raider's lack of red dice means it has to get in close to the enemy, and I think we haven't fully processed the different tactics to let us do that yet.

This exactly. Lyraeus, I don't know why you think so, but the Raider and CR are completely different on terms of engagement zones and survivability.

Simply because I have seen them both pop relatively easily.

The only real bonus the CR90 has over the Raider is as I called it before it was released is the fact that Mon Mothma exists.

The CR90 fits one major role and that is a long range PitA but other than that it's not spectacular. If you know how to fly against them, they go boom.

The Raider is a strong anti-squadron force, even more so than the Nebulon-B so it fills it's main role really well. I have a feeling however that many are using it like a CR90 and for those that have any extensive experience with the CR90 B know that it can only survive so long before it goes boom.

The CR90 is a med/long range harasser and fits the role quite well - armament, def tokens, manoeuverablity and upgrade slots are geared towards a purpose, and MM even makes CR90-heavy builds quite viable. The raider is partly an anti-squadron force, but could not earn its place baced on that role alone, so he also applied for being a close-range gunboat.

Is the anti-squadron part useful? Meh. If you forego own squadrons for a ship-only build you only fear bombers, however dedicating one/few raiders for anti-bomber work is feeding boints to the enemy. And if you are willing to bring own fighters I feel more than one raider is never necessary, nor helpful.

Is the close-combat part useful? Meh. It blows easier than any other close-combat small cap and the def tokens are not fully kitted towards close range. You can potentially built it into a one-shot missile boat in which way, congrats, you actually built a ship that has to earn back 45+ points in a single round of shooting before vaporizing. Again, that is possible and might be suitable for a single raider, but its still a niche, no matter how to look at it.