Ok we get it you're a grumpy dude, the raider isn't broken there's a dude here on the forums who plays it well competitive

I deny his existence! I still wish for FFG coming out and saying something like "OOPSIE, there was a printing error on the raider. it actually lacks a support team upgrade icon, sorry guys!"

But hey... i can dream can i.

Also my existence Is undeniable!

And I think it is hilarious I am the the main argument against "the Raider sucks" threads

It's your own fault that you won with them, don't try to blame this on us!

I could switch them for Glad-1s with Intel officer and OE at a cost of 67 (vs my 68 points expanded launcher raiders) which would allow increased survivability but they would lose maneuvering potential and would require a double arc to get the same fire power on target(which also dosnt work as well with Intel officer) and have less manuverabilty. And part of the list is useing my activation advantage to make sure you don't get shots on me, so I really don't need the extra survivability from the glass.

Hence I use raiders. But even so the list is very Matchup dependent since I have to be 1st player and generally need to have more ships then you (luckily for me 90% of other lists fall build with 2-4 ships and have 390+ points)

Ways to use the Raider:

1. Getting an extra activation as an Imperial player for 44 points. VERY GOOD USE.

2. ISD = Shark. Raider = Pilot fish. Keep it close to the ISD and they will live a lot longer and wreck squadrons with the ISD and Raider AS dice.

3. Flank like crazy and find the enemy in turns 4-6.

4. Run a crazy no holds barred Ode to the Clon fleet. (Requires the Emperor's personal 90+ point Demolisher and 1st player.)

5. Paint it because its a cool model.

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.

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.

I understand these arguments and i even admit that it's good against squadrons but the problem is, you are at a serious disadvantage against lists without squadrons which are perfectly viable. Its like the Tie interceptor, great squadron on paper but if there's nothing to fight it's alot of wasted points. Dice against ships for instance are never wasted, that's why the firespray excels, it has enough to fend of other squadrons and if there are none you can project the damage onto ships. Firesprays do reach ISD's AND they can dish damage out. Raiders can't, that was the point i was trying to make.

Also keep in mind in a tournament setting it's about with how much difference you actually win in terms of points, not just wether you do win. Having extremely fragile ships that dont help you achieve an overwhelming victory but risk you losing 50-80 (depending on upgrades).

I could not disagree more, in the case of the lone raider. A single Raider with OE is quite useful against ships. From the front arc, you are averaging roughly 4 damage (and likely a crit), plus you can use it for stalling activations to use ISD/VSD/GSD later and as a blocker (jamming one in front of an AFII or an MC80 is a very good use of a raider).

Also, if you brought it to escort a Rhymer Ball and the other guy has no squadrons, that means they are going to spend all game getting pummeled by a Rhymer Ball and you have the range advantage. That allows you to sit back with the Raider and pick your spots.

EDIT: if you think the Raider in this role is bad, you also think the CR90 is bad. Both are plenty survivable at range, and in the case of the CR90 it chips away, while in the case of the Raider it is waiting for you to be dumb enough to get closer. In either case, as long as your list already had a natural range advantage, you win (Rhymerball with no squadrons for the opponent / rebel red dice dominance). Even if we are going to have a debate about the Raider being good/bad as a general usage ship, a single cheap squadron escort / sucker punch / blocker / spare activation is literally the cheapest Imperial option available for this role and the only one that can effectively use the OE + Anti-Squadron fire combo, so you're not going to convince me that one of those isn't useful, as any other option you offer up is more expensive and therefore worse at this role.

Also keep in mind in a tournament setting it's about with how much difference you actually win in terms of points, not just wether you do win. Having extremely fragile ships that dont help you achieve an overwhelming victory but risk you losing 50-80 (depending on upgrades).

Let me turn this around on you: why are you flying ships you know to be fragile into situations that you already acknowledge as hopeless? Why not fly them elsewhere with a different intent? Going back to the turn 4 rear arc, yeah, they do nothing for 2/3 of the game, but those last two can definitely make it up.

Ok we get it you're a grumpy dude, the raider isn't broken there's a dude here on the forums who plays it well competitive

I deny his existence! I still wish for FFG coming out and saying something like "OOPSIE, there was a printing error on the raider. it actually lacks a support team upgrade icon, sorry guys!"

But hey... i can dream can i.

Also my existence Is undeniable!

And I think it is hilarious I am the the main argument against "the Raider sucks" threads

It's your own fault that you won with them, don't try to blame this on us!

also I will say my list us built on what the raiders can do, it is brutally effective because I found a niche that can be used by the riaders, namely a speed 4 ship that has an arc which deals MORE DAMGE then an ISD Front arc (the most lethal Generic arc in the game) all at a cost less then 70 points.

I could switch them for Glad-1s with Intel officer and OE at a cost of 67 (vs my 68 points expanded launcher raiders) which would allow increased survivability but they would lose maneuvering potential and would require a double arc to get the same fire power on target(which also dosnt work as well with Intel officer) and have less manuverabilty. And part of the list is useing my activation advantage to make sure you don't get shots on me, so I really don't need the extra survivability from the glass.

Hence I use raiders. But even so the list is very Matchup dependent since I have to be 1st player and generally need to have more ships then you (luckily for me 90% of other lists fall build with 2-4 ships and have 390+ points)

Could you elaborate how a raider is more maneuverable ? A gladiator can click once more with an engine tech and is less prone to Tractors. Also i tend not to have problems with the double arc with the gladiators but i admit that i maybe tried to much to achieve the same with the raiders (double arc instead of going full front)

Not a big fan of the Raider myself, yet trying to run 133 points of squadrons and an ISD doesn't leave much room for anything else.

I understand these arguments and i even admit that it's good against squadrons but the problem is, you are at a serious disadvantage against lists without squadrons which are perfectly viable. Its like the Tie interceptor, great squadron on paper but if there's nothing to fight it's alot of wasted points. Dice against ships for instance are never wasted, that's why the firespray excels, it has enough to fend of other squadrons and if there are none you can project the damage onto ships. Firesprays do reach ISD's AND they can dish damage out. Raiders can't, that was the point i was trying to make.

Also keep in mind in a tournament setting it's about with how much difference you actually win in terms of points, not just wether you do win. Having extremely fragile ships that dont help you achieve an overwhelming victory but risk you losing 50-80 (depending on upgrades).

I could not disagree more, in the case of the lone raider. A single Raider with OE is quite useful against ships. From the front arc, you are averaging roughly 4 damage (and likely a crit), plus you can use it for stalling activations to use ISD/VSD/GSD later and as a blocker (jamming one in front of an AFII or an MC80 is a very good use of a raider).

Also, if you brought it to escort a Rhymer Ball and the other guy has no squadrons, that means they are going to spend all game getting pummeled by a Rhymer Ball and you have the range advantage. That allows you to sit back with the Raider and pick your spots.

It's all nice and dandy but i still arrive at the same point. Why doesn't this happen in our games ? The activation advantage has been discussed, without Initative it's seriously hampered though. If you need to be 1st player to have a chance to win it's not a tournament fit list.

Also keep in mind in a tournament setting it's about with how much difference you actually win in terms of points, not just wether you do win. Having extremely fragile ships that dont help you achieve an overwhelming victory but risk you losing 50-80 (depending on upgrades).

Let me turn this around on you: why are you flying ships you know to be fragile into situations that you already acknowledge as hopeless? Why not fly them elsewhere with a different intent? Going back to the turn 4 rear arc, yeah, they do nothing for 2/3 of the game, but those last two can definitely make it up.

I'm not, thats my point, i won't use the raider, it doesnt solve any problem still that i couldn't handle with less errorsusceptability. Also Initiative dependance is very very dangerous once people have figured you out.

I just played a Raider 2 with Montferrat and I found that as an escort role it works like a charm

By placing it in the flank, when I boosted to Speed 3 I was able not only to obscure the Raider 2, but also the ISD it was escorting. And believe me, against natural flankers with low Amounts of dice like the CR90, it worked like charm, because not only they lost their own firepower against the Raider, but they also lost their firepower against the ISD.

It also makes arc dodging by smaller ships more complicated : they can try and avoid the ISD's front arc, but they'll end up in the Raider's own front arc. Or they won't and will have to go even further on an escape trajectory, from which the Raider with Montferrat can still obscure.

____

And my opponent was playing a 8 CR90B Riekaan list, so it's not completely clueless against lists without squadrons either.

It's clearly not meant as a generic all purpose attack ship. I really see the Raider as being the Neb B of the Empire : a good support ship that can still annoy the opponent, but namely by making his positioning more difficult.

I just played a Raider 2 with Montferrat and I found that as an escort role it works like a charm

By placing it in the flank, when I boosted to Speed 3 I was able not only to obscure the Raider 2, but also the ISD it was escorting. And believe me, against natural flankers with low Amounts of dice like the CR90, it worked like charm, because not only they lost their own firepower against the Raider, but they also lost their firepower against the ISD.

It also makes arc dodging by smaller ships more complicated : they can try and avoid the ISD's front arc, but they'll end up in the Raider's own front arc. Or they won't and will have to go even further on an escape trajectory, from which the Raider with Montferrat can still obscure.

____

And my opponent was playing a 8 CR90B Riekaan list, so it's not completely clueless against lists without squadrons either.

It's clearly not meant as a generic all purpose attack ship. I really see the Raider as being the Neb B of the Empire : a good support ship that can still annoy the opponent, but namely by making his positioning more difficult.

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.

Ok we get it you're a grumpy dude, the raider isn't broken there's a dude here on the forums who plays it well competitive

I deny his existence! I still wish for FFG coming out and saying something like "OOPSIE, there was a printing error on the raider. it actually lacks a support team upgrade icon, sorry guys!"

But hey... i can dream can i.

Also my existence Is undeniable!

And I think it is hilarious I am the the main argument against "the Raider sucks" threads

It's your own fault that you won with them, don't try to blame this on us!

also I will say my list us built on what the raiders can do, it is brutally effective because I found a niche that can be used by the riaders, namely a speed 4 ship that has an arc which deals MORE DAMGE then an ISD Front arc (the most lethal Generic arc in the game) all at a cost less then 70 points.

I could switch them for Glad-1s with Intel officer and OE at a cost of 67 (vs my 68 points expanded launcher raiders) which would allow increased survivability but they would lose maneuvering potential and would require a double arc to get the same fire power on target(which also dosnt work as well with Intel officer) and have less manuverabilty. And part of the list is useing my activation advantage to make sure you don't get shots on me, so I really don't need the extra survivability from the glass.

Hence I use raiders. But even so the list is very Matchup dependent since I have to be 1st player and generally need to have more ships then you (luckily for me 90% of other lists fall build with 2-4 ships and have 390+ points)

Could you elaborate how a raider is more maneuverable ? A gladiator can click once more with an engine tech and is less prone to Tractors. Also i tend not to have problems with the double arc with the gladiators but i admit that i maybe tried to much to achieve the same with the raiders (double arc instead of going full front)

A gladiator can click once more with an engine tech and is less prone to Tractors.

The Glad is a small ship just like the Raider - they Tractor the same. If anything the RDR is less susceptible due to having a command of 1.

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 !

A gladiator can click once more with an engine tech and is less prone to Tractors.

The Glad is a small ship just like the Raider - they Tractor the same. If anything the RDR is less susceptible due to having a command of 1.

Just to bounce on your post regarding Tractor Beams :

I think that its biggest interest is not slowing ships down, but the looming threat of smaller ships being slowed down. I'd rather have a CR90 spam Nav commands to make sure it won't be caught than to spam CF commands and increase its firepower by 50 to 100%.

That's not true, the same reason tractoring an MC80 is useless but an ISD is useful. If you are at Speed 1 without engine techs your maximum speed with just a command is Speed 2. If you use a navigate command on an MC80 that's down to speed 1 (the minimum Speed a Tractor can go) you can always go to Max Speed of 3 with just one command because of the engine Techs. You will also have more Clicks.

That's why a ship with engine techs is way less prone to tractor beaming. The only marginal advantage they have is the point difference obviously and that montferrat works better on a Spd4 ship than a Spd 3 + Eng. Tech, but that's about it

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.

if I put engine techs on the glad it now costs 75 pts and is too expensive for the purpose in my fleet, so at the same cost as my raiders (67-68) it would be less maneuverable.

I really really hate to be this guy but this confirms my point. For 7 points more you get more HP, more Engineering, better maneuverability, better defense tokens, (very limited) long range dice. In my mind you just confirmed what i said, it rivals the gladiators spot without having it's title and being worse at everything else. Also my thinking is this: i can take ACM instead of the Missile Launchers and save some points because i can angle the Gladiator better.

I would really love to see you play a gladiator spam just for the hell of it.

A gladiator can click once more with an engine tech and is less prone to Tractors.

The Glad is a small ship just like the Raider - they Tractor the same. If anything the RDR is less susceptible due to having a command of 1.

That's not true, the same reason tractoring an MC80 is useless but an ISD is useful. If you are at Speed 1 without engine techs your maximum speed with just a command is Speed 2. If you use a navigate command on an MC80 that's down to speed 1 (the minimum Speed a Tractor can go) you can always go to Max Speed of 3 with just one command because of the engine Techs. You will also have more Clicks.

That's why a ship with engine techs is way less prone to tractor beaming. The only marginal advantage they have is the point difference obviously and that montferrat works better on a Spd4 ship than a Spd 3 + Eng. Tech, but that's about it

Actually, Korr was on to something.

The obvious defense against a Tractor Beam is to keep having a Navigate Dial on so you won't ever get slowed down. In essence, it prevents the ship from using any other type of command if it wants to ensure that it's still going to be going at the desired speed, and that's the hidden beauty of the Tractor Beams.

Because, truly, whether you have a banked token or a Nav command without a token, the effect is the same.

What Engine Techs does is to give you better control over your acceleration and deceleration. But against a Tractor Beam you'll still want to spam navigate commands so you don't ever get slowed down into an undesirable position. In essence, both the Raider and a Gladiator with Engine Techs are equally susceptible to a Tractor Beam, because it's both going to force them to spam Navigate Commands to keep going at the speed they want.

With the Raider though, due to command 1, you can capitalize on the turn you won't be beamed to do some other command, which is harder to predict with a GSD.

Medium and Large ships care much less about Tractor beams because they are less likely to properly dodge arcs.

The Glad is a small ship just like the Raider - they Tractor the same. If anything the RDR is less susceptible due to having a command of 1.

That's not true, the same reason tractoring an MC80 is useless but an ISD is useful. If you are at Speed 1 without engine techs your maximum speed with just a command is Speed 2. If you use a navigate command on an MC80 that's down to speed 1 (the minimum Speed a Tractor can go) you can always go to Max Speed of 3 with just one command because of the engine Techs. You will also have more Clicks.

That's why a ship with engine techs is way less prone to tractor beaming. The only marginal advantage they have is the point difference obviously and that montferrat works better on a Spd4 ship than a Spd 3 + Eng. Tech, but that's about it

You lose your nav token if you get tractor beamed. How are you using engine techs without a nav command, which could bump you back up to the speed you were going?

The Glad is a small ship just like the Raider - they Tractor the same. If anything the RDR is less susceptible due to having a command of 1.

That's not true, the same reason tractoring an MC80 is useless but an ISD is useful. If you are at Speed 1 without engine techs your maximum speed with just a command is Speed 2. If you use a navigate command on an MC80 that's down to speed 1 (the minimum Speed a Tractor can go) you can always go to Max Speed of 3 with just one command because of the engine Techs. You will also have more Clicks.

That's why a ship with engine techs is way less prone to tractor beaming. The only marginal advantage they have is the point difference obviously and that montferrat works better on a Spd4 ship than a Spd 3 + Eng. Tech, but that's about it

You lose your nav token if you get tractor beamed. How are you using engine techs without a nav command, which could bump you back up to the speed you were going?

With the Navigate command that 90% of the people are using right now. There's very little reason to use anything else on a ship with engine tech. For the exception you have wing commanders, engineers etc. I use my engine techs 95% of the time with commands, not tokens.

To not have a navigate command when you need it can cost you the game.

To not have a concentrate fire for instance costs you one die which hardly costs you the game.

Squadroncommands are obsolete due to "rogue"

Engineer Commands i tend to fish out with the engineering Captain Officer (on big ships like the ISD / MC80).

A gladiator can click once more with an engine tech and is less prone to Tractors.

The Glad is a small ship just like the Raider - they Tractor the same. If anything the RDR is less susceptible due to having a command of 1.

That's not true, the same reason tractoring an MC80 is useless but an ISD is useful. If you are at Speed 1 without engine techs your maximum speed with just a command is Speed 2. If you use a navigate command on an MC80 that's down to speed 1 (the minimum Speed a Tractor can go) you can always go to Max Speed of 3 with just one command because of the engine Techs. You will also have more Clicks.

That's why a ship with engine techs is way less prone to tractor beaming. The only marginal advantage they have is the point difference obviously and that montferrat works better on a Spd4 ship than a Spd 3 + Eng. Tech, but that's about it

Actually, Korr was on to something.

The obvious defense against a Tractor Beam is to keep having a Navigate Dial on so you won't ever get slowed down. In essence, it prevents the ship from using any other type of command if it wants to ensure that it's still going to be going at the desired speed, and that's the hidden beauty of the Tractor Beams.

Because, truly, whether you have a banked token or a Nav command without a token, the effect is the same.

What Engine Techs does is to give you better control over your acceleration and deceleration. But against a Tractor Beam you'll still want to spam navigate commands so you don't ever get slowed down into an undesirable position. In essence, both the Raider and a Gladiator with Engine Techs are equally susceptible to a Tractor Beam, because it's both going to force them to spam Navigate Commands to keep going at the speed they want.

With the Raider though, due to command 1, you can capitalize on the turn you won't be beamed to do some other command, which is harder to predict with a GSD.

Medium and Large ships care much less about Tractor beams because they are less likely to properly dodge arcs.

The only compelling argument is right there, the Gladiator has Command 2. Which allows it to stack more Tokens and since i almost always 99% in the cases use Navigate as commands on Gladiators it doesnt matter. May vary on your playstyle, but any other command is largely useless (maybe concentrate Fire on Turn 6 or Repair)

Squadroncommands are obsolete due to "rogue"

...nope. Nope nope nope nope nope.

The few times I've played against a list in a tournament that had a Raider I roasted them (I was playing Imperial) as they were on the flank between me and the ISD I was aiming for. That said I think in both cases the player was using them wrong letting them fly with the big boys.

To me I think it's best to think of a Raider like a Frigate. They don't belong in the line of battle. They don't match up against ships of the line. They belong on the edges and should be the ones working the flank and paired with squadrons.

Still. I have a hard time looking at those points spent on a Raider and think of the upgrades or the squadrons I COULD be buying. That's where I have some math to do yet to convince myself a Raider is actually worth it.

I do wondering if in the Raider we aren't looking at a ship that won't "grow up" in Wave 3.

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.