Dudes.

Wave 1. Squadrons suck, they will never see play, they will always be bad. Squadrons win Worlds at Wave 1.

Raiders Suck Thread. Clon stomps Vassal.

A local meta thing (which im sure is true elsewhere) Post Wave 2. VSDs are dead, 9 VSDs in top 5 Newcastle (Australia, competitive store) Store Champs.

People will say anything is bad if they can't figure out the use. Then when they get their faces stomped in by people running the thing they disregarded you will hear no end of i) i made mistakes ii) they rolled hot iii) the field was sucky, they got lucky

To quote Taylor Swift, "And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate. Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake. I shake it off, I shake it off"

I don't understand the attitdue. Clons win is a testament to the the supreme balance of the game and how much the game rewards skill over cheese.

@Trizzo : It's easier to blame the ship rather than the one flying it

Hey, I had multiple games running Raiders where they have constantly disappointed me, and that's where my opinion of their low performance comes from... practical demonstration before my very eyes of why they suck. It's not because I'm a bad player, I've topped in tournaments before without using them but the Raider continued to under-perform in casual games and in tournaments. Of the last two tournaments, since I'm the only player to bring them in competitively, I figured it was a common opinion.

So I'm not on some bandwagon from the internet on why they aren't working, I feel they aren't working because I tried using them and they aren't working for the reasons we've gone over in this thread. But, I will concede that there might be strategies I don't typically consider that will be useful....

...Such as the idea of steering the ship to cross from out of range to close range in one blow. I feel this is particularly tricky because you need to predict where your target can go, and if you're not careful you'll blow by, say, an assault frigate and end on the far side double-arced by your target. Sure, your pass did good, but how likely will the Raider survive that double-arc shot to one arc and still activate again? Also, since you blew by, is it likely you'll engage again? Stay on the board? These questions are purely situational, and how well the Raider works depends on how strong of a "yes" can be said of these questions.

Still while the strategy of blocking sounds more suicidal than going the long way around as I've done in the past, it might just work. I'm open to trying it.

From what I've seen on these boards, the Raider looks like it has two successful applications - as a fighter/bomber escort or as a dodgy spam list. A Raider-I with Ruthless Strategists or Ordnance Experts can put the hurt on enemy squadrons. And its titles just add to that ability. Or if you take a lot of raiders to make a dodgy list, you can maneuver around and score a lot of shots without taking primary arc fire in return. If you're not going to use it in one of those roles and can't find another role to succeed with, then don't take them. You can't really say something absolutely sucks if other people have success with it. It sucks for your play style.

Personally, I'm not a fan at present. I only have two, so no spamming for me, and I just can't justify putting points into a brittle ship when I can take half a dozen fighter squadrons. They're not for me, but that doesn't mean they suck. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

I'm with clontroper on this one.

I see nothing wrong with the raider in fact it is one of my fav ships because it's small,fast and maneuverable...

WHY IT'S GREAT!...

1 It has a low Command value of 1, giving it great flexibility in defining its engagement,

2 It is also the fastest ship the Imperials can get without upgrades, being able to naturally ramp up to speed 4.

3 it is good against squadrons...

4 Both Raiders 1 and 2 are reasonably cheap.

5 Both Raiders 1 and 2 have reasonable front arcs consisting of 2blue and 2black and 3blue and 1 black respectively ,

6 They also both have good anti squadron armaments.

Ayways there are obviously gonna be more reasons but these are just a few I wanted to put out there.

In my opinion people should stop dissing it. If you think it's a bad ship then don't bother using it...

Hey, I had multiple games running Raiders where they have constantly disappointed me, and that's where my opinion of their low performance comes from... practical demonstration before my very eyes of why they suck. It's not because I'm a bad player, I've topped in tournaments before without using them but the Raider continued to under-perform in casual games and in tournaments. Of the last two tournaments, since I'm the only player to bring them in competitively, I figured it was a common opinion.

As Obi-Wan put it : "Your eyes can deceive you"

Don't only rely on your own experience, and this is a great idea to turn to the forums I was ready to swear off the ISD because I found its performance highly disappointing until my last Store Champ game where I got my ass handed to me by a player who flew his own ISD marvelously ! Now I want to match that performance

With the Raiders, wide flanks I think are the name of the game over suicide diving (unless you have initiative and you have more activations than the opponent). It really feels like a CR90B in terms of playstyle : a high reliance on the front arc means that you want to approach from an angle then close in to tank one shot with a low enough number of dice that you can expect no accuracies, do your damage then burn away.

I myself own 3 of them and try to make them work.

I'm still trying.

I took them all 3 (Raider I, naked) in a list for Store Championship as AA ships, instead of fighter squadrons ... and guess what: they failed me.

I think they kill a single squadron in 3 games. They were either out of range or killed by a capital ship or killed by the Rhymer ball.

I think in the last game I just used them to ram the flag ship in a suicide mission - because they tend to die anyways, no matter what I do. I did win this game.

Raiders tend to die with 75% shields still up. I think this is their main problem.

Trade one evade for a redirect and they are fixed.

And they could use a Support Team slot.

I myself own 3 of them and try to make them work.

I'm still trying.

I took them all 3 (Raider I, naked) in a list for Store Championship as AA ships, instead of fighter squadrons ... and guess what: they failed me.

I think they kill a single squadron in 3 games. They were either out of range or killed by a capital ship or killed by the Rhymer ball.

I think in the last game I just used them to ram the flag ship in a suicide mission - because they tend to die anyways, no matter what I do. I did win this game.

Raiders tend to die with 75% shields still up. I think this is their main problem.

Trade one evade for a redirect and they are fixed.

And they could use a Support Team slot.

From my (limited) experience with raiders, I think you need to slap like one upgrade on them to make them feel like they are worth their points. Expanded launchers is awesome, and yeah, makes it about as expensive as a glad, but also makes it so it chucks six dice out the front, which is the same as a Victory. And, for tying up squadrons/anti squadron, I found the one title that engages stuff worked pretty well.

If they had a redirect they would be a mini Gladiator for the price of a CR90A and that would be pretty broken. They can actually mitigate MORE damage than a CR90 in a world with XI7s.

I took them all 3 (Raider I, naked) in a list for Store Championship as AA ships, instead of fighter squadrons ... and guess what: they failed me.

I think they kill a single squadron in 3 games. They were either out of range or killed by a capital ship or killed by the Rhymer ball.

I think in the last game I just used them to ram the flag ship in a suicide mission - because they tend to die anyways, no matter what I do. I did win this game.

Raider-Is at bare minimum should be given Ordnance Experts and I would strongly consider an Ordnance upgrade as well (I keep waffling on this one overall, but it's definitely worth considering if the Raider's intended role includes anti-ship combat).

Running Raiders instead of fighters won't work. You can't keep enemy squadrons where you want them and you can't keep them off your ships. Running Raiders in addition to fighters is great. As I keep saying, in most fleets they're a force multiplier. If you don't have a force to multiply (in this example: fighters), they won't do very well.

Using Raiders to get in front of conga lines is a great use of a Raider. Eventually you will die, but estimating a Raider's usefulness based on whether or not it survived will usually undervalue the Raider. It's a fragile ship.

I myself own 3 of them and try to make them work.

I'm still trying.

I took them all 3 (Raider I, naked) in a list for Store Championship as AA ships, instead of fighter squadrons ... and guess what: they failed me.

I think they kill a single squadron in 3 games. They were either out of range or killed by a capital ship or killed by the Rhymer ball.

I think in the last game I just used them to ram the flag ship in a suicide mission - because they tend to die anyways, no matter what I do. I did win this game.

Raiders tend to die with 75% shields still up. I think this is their main problem.

Trade one evade for a redirect and they are fixed.

And they could use a Support Team slot.

It seems to me this idea of a full range-band charge might be the only way to run a Raider effectively (at least until I see someone try something else that works). Why it does is because Clon cuts down on the times it has to defend. You're right, the Raider can't protect itself well, fortunately it can survive about 1-2 average attacks before being destroyed. Clon's strategy requires that so many Raiders charge in and punch above their weight before all of them are destroyed. It's a strategy between target saturation (by having more targets than things shooting) and little ships punching harder than they should.

I don't think this strategy is for everyone, which is why some of us couldn't conceive of it before now, because it's deliberately putting these ships in a spot where they can be easily destroyed. Also, it requires some foresight and practice to place the ships exactly where you need them to. I think, since I haven't tried running Raiders with the insights I just learned here.

Hey, I had multiple games running Raiders where they have constantly disappointed me, and that's where my opinion of their low performance comes from... practical demonstration before my very eyes of why they suck. It's not because I'm a bad player, I've topped in tournaments before without using them but the Raider continued to under-perform in casual games and in tournaments. Of the last two tournaments, since I'm the only player to bring them in competitively, I figured it was a common opinion.

As Obi-Wan put it : "Your eyes can deceive you"

Don't only rely on your own experience, and this is a great idea to turn to the forums I was ready to swear off the ISD because I found its performance highly disappointing until my last Store Champ game where I got my ass handed to me by a player who flew his own ISD marvelously ! Now I want to match that performance

With the Raiders, wide flanks I think are the name of the game over suicide diving (unless you have initiative and you have more activations than the opponent). It really feels like a CR90B in terms of playstyle : a high reliance on the front arc means that you want to approach from an angle then close in to tank one shot with a low enough number of dice that you can expect no accuracies, do your damage then burn away.

Not that I think an entire community is trying to sell a bridge, but for cases like these I feel I'll 'believe it when I see it'. In the very least I want to understand the theory behind why something works, and it wasn't until someone pointed out the range-stick jump that I realized perhaps it could. Between the three ships capable of doing this, the Raider is I think the cheapest and has the best dice pool in the front. You could apply this strategy to MC30s, maybe to CR-90s but not as well because of their weapons selection.

doublepost

Raiders tend to work well with ISD's and cheap as chips tie fighters...my bud used a Raider 2 with overload pulse and used it to great effect...

Issue is though it's a one trick pony, smart players focus the raider...but that's a risky move if the raider is in the herd of star destroyers.

I saw Ozzel work well with a raider + 2 ISD 2 combo.

Well, just returned from a winter tourny for which the latest iteration of my list won all 3 games (2x 10-0 and 1x 8-2).

Considering I put the list together partially as a "hey, it'll be unusual and fun" list for a store championship which was my first time playing since Sullust, for which I scored reasonably, and have then gone on to win a store championship and then tear through today's tournament, I think the Raider focused list is turning out to be pretty deadly.

Granted, I think part of the danger from it is that it's completely out of the blue compared to what most people seem to expect and prepare for, so they're really not sure on how to appoach the problem. This may mean the list becomes somewhat neutered if people builing lists with Raider killing in mind, but I guess time will tell on that one.

The one drawback from today's tourny? I was tearing through opponents so badly that I've promised to take a different fleet next month. As much as I've grown to love the Raider, I really would rather not be "that cheesy powergamer guy" that everyone hates playing against >.<

For anyone curious about the current iteration of my fleet:

Gladiator I: Admiral Ozzel, Admiral Montferrat, Ordnance Experts, Engine Techs, Assault Proton Torpedoes, Demolisher

Raider I: Ordnance Experts, Expanded Launchers

Raider I: Ordnance Experts, Expanded Launchers

Raider I: Expanded Hanger Bay

Raider I: Expanded Hanger Bay

IG-88, 3x TIE Interceptor, 1x TIE Bomber

Total: 391 points

I haven't had a chance to check it out yet, but after a store championship yesterday, we were toying with useful Raider roles. This is one I'd really like to test out:

Raider-II

- Admiral Montferrat

- Ruthless Strategists

- Expanded Hangars

Gladiator I-class SD

- Demolisher

- Ordnance Experts

- ACMs

Rhymer

Dengar

4 x Firesprays

The basic idea is that the Glad shadows behind the Raider, both traveling at Speed 3, meaning they both count as Obstructed. The Raider flips squadron commands as often as needed to bump Dengar and Rhymer into position, and the Firesprays take care of themselves. There're 147 fleet points left, so probably Ozzel and a kitted ISD-I to round it out. The ISD can serve as a hefty anvil with a very mobile hammer contingent that can operate completely independently from it.

Does anyone have any videos of some competitive Raider-centric games against what are considered to be top tournament lists (i.e. Ackbar conga, double ISDs, etc)? Not that I necessarily disbelieve that it's possible for Raiders to do well, but all I see are lots of words about "time it right", "outplay them", and the like, which don't actually amount to any practical understanding of how to pilot Raiders. It's really simple to say "Just go in from outside max range band to short range in one turn with all your raiders, then move before they can attack back", but some actual turn by turns are needed to give any real, actionable insight.

I happen to be in the same boat as the OP, with my experience of Raiders. As some background, I walked away from Sullust with the MC80 and an ISD, in an area which is generally considered to be competitive. Also done similarly well back when I played X-Wing. Not to brag, but show as a baseline that I at least am not a terrible player.

Have tried things like 3 Raiders, 2 Gladiators, ISD plus 2 Raider escorts, and many times adding a single Raider to some normal lists. Sure, I've won a lot of those game, but attribute that more to when my opponent made mistakes than because the Raiders ran so well.

Some of the problems I see with Raiders are problems (Or, "limitations", rather) to the game system. Mainly with regards to how time is experienced.

For example, the worst place for a Raider to be is actually the rear hull zone, even when squaring off against an ISD - which is strangely disconnected from what one would assume to be true. With a short range ship like the Raider I, you can't actually attack when flying into the rear hull zone, as you start outside of close range. Then, if you activate first, you get one round of attacks off, then must move into either the side arc or front arc of their ship. They activate and likely blow your Raider away in one shot. The other option is to activate, then ram to stay put, but then you won't likely be getting a shot off next round. If you activate after, all they have to do is activate that ship, then move. Any ship moving speed 1 will move out of close range unless you managed to park the Raider only a couple of centimeters behind it - which is extremely hard, by the way, when compared to the "payoff" of doing so.

This results in a pretty bizarre experience where, even if the ships are moving at the same "speed" in game terms, a close-range ship (black dice) will perpetually be either too far away to fire or constantly ramming its prey.

Anyways, I'll stop myself before I repeat a bunch of points already brought up in this thread. I'm just hoping that someone will be kind enough to link to some decent competitive batrep videos of Raider use. There didn't seem to be any in the clontroper5 thread, but haven't been able to read the whole thing yet.

Does anyone have any videos of some competitive Raider-centric games against what are considered to be top tournament lists (i.e. Ackbar conga, double ISDs, etc)? Not that I necessarily disbelieve that it's possible for Raiders to do well, but all I see are lots of words about "time it right", "outplay them", and the like, which don't actually amount to any practical understanding of how to pilot Raiders. It's really simple to say "Just go in from outside max range band to short range in one turn with all your raiders, then move before they can attack back", but some actual turn by turns are needed to give any real, actionable insight.

I happen to be in the same boat as the OP, with my experience of Raiders. As some background, I walked away from Sullust with the MC80 and an ISD, in an area which is generally considered to be competitive. Also done similarly well back when I played X-Wing. Not to brag, but show as a baseline that I at least am not a terrible player.

Have tried things like 3 Raiders, 2 Gladiators, ISD plus 2 Raider escorts, and many times adding a single Raider to some normal lists. Sure, I've won a lot of those game, but attribute that more to when my opponent made mistakes than because the Raiders ran so well.

Some of the problems I see with Raiders are problems (Or, "limitations", rather) to the game system. Mainly with regards to how time is experienced.

For example, the worst place for a Raider to be is actually the rear hull zone, even when squaring off against an ISD - which is strangely disconnected from what one would assume to be true. With a short range ship like the Raider I, you can't actually attack when flying into the rear hull zone, as you start outside of close range. Then, if you activate first, you get one round of attacks off, then must move into either the side arc or front arc of their ship. They activate and likely blow your Raider away in one shot. The other option is to activate, then ram to stay put, but then you won't likely be getting a shot off next round. If you activate after, all they have to do is activate that ship, then move. Any ship moving speed 1 will move out of close range unless you managed to park the Raider only a couple of centimeters behind it - which is extremely hard, by the way, when compared to the "payoff" of doing so.

This results in a pretty bizarre experience where, even if the ships are moving at the same "speed" in game terms, a close-range ship (black dice) will perpetually be either too far away to fire or constantly ramming its prey.

Anyways, I'll stop myself before I repeat a bunch of points already brought up in this thread. I'm just hoping that someone will be kind enough to link to some decent competitive batrep videos of Raider use. There didn't seem to be any in the clontroper5 thread, but haven't been able to read the whole thing yet.

Also:

Thanks, clon, I will review these!

Thinking about it, I wonder if the most dangerous part of Clon's list isn't the Raiders. It's that tricked out Demolisher. That thing on an apocalyptic day can deal 10 damage out the front, and Clon also bought some assurances to make that happen. I reviewed Clon's list again and wondered why you would want to take Screed when you already have Ordnance Experts. The reason is to have the most amount of control over your dice to guarantee that you're doing hit-crit on really terrible rolls, when your Ordnance interns decide to turn blanks into more blanks.

The Raiders are just icing on the cake. They're to draw attention from that 10 damage Demolisher coming in at you and become an incentive to punch out first.

Fortunately for the rest of us, if you have the right tools I think it's easy to do. If whatever ship you have can survive the Demolisher punch, focus on punching out the un-activated Raiders before they go. Typically it's going to be the Raider that's closest to finishing off your wounded ship. Then by cutting down on the activations you can start to balance out activations and turn the tables on the Raider swarm, then Demolisher.

Looking at the Demolisher again... the only thing it has on it for defense token mitigation is the Intel Officer. Realistically I'd expect it to charge and threaten your brace. So take a page out of the reckless Raider play and burn it anyway. If there's enough damage to deplete a shield that's a great contender to turn off brace, and you've at least bought another turn where you can activate. It's also a strong incentive to start sticking Wallex on ships other than the Admonition, to counter intel carriers like this.

What I do think is that this might spell the end of typical few-ship and small-ship rebel lists that lean on special ship synergies. Facing the Demolisher like this, and Raiders with high damage output, to deal with it you need to have good tanky ships with great defensive abilities. Fortunately the Rebels are very suited to this already with good upgrades, universal access to ECM, and great shield amounts to move and redirect to. For the Empire they typically have larger hulls and more dangerous dice pools, and you could always try out-RDR'ing the Raider.

All of that said, while the case has clearly been made for the Raider not being completely useless, I just think this means it's a one trick pony. True I haven't pressed them in the AA role, but I still think you could do more with 4 interceptor squadrons than taking an easily exploded Raider.

Just throwing this in from my tournament with 10 people last week: The lists that contained raiders ended up on the very bottom. Winner were Double ISD / Motti, 6 Cr90 reroute Spam / 3 CR90, 1 MC30 Ackbar lists.

Just throwing this in from my tournament with 10 people last week: The lists that contained raiders ended up on the very bottom. Winner were Double ISD / Motti, 6 Cr90 reroute Spam / 3 CR90, 1 MC30 Ackbar lists.

In my store champ, the first place was with ISD + double raiders with Ozzel. Thank god for diversity

Just throwing this in from my tournament with 10 people last week: The lists that contained raiders ended up on the very bottom. Winner were Double ISD / Motti, 6 Cr90 reroute Spam / 3 CR90, 1 MC30 Ackbar lists.

In my store champ, the first place was with ISD + double raiders with Ozzel. Thank god for diversity

Yeah and you will for months draw from this to formulate intricate, very simple tactics that nobody has seen so far as usual wont you

I think you have a case of very selective reading my friend Countless players, vassal tournament results and Store Champs results confirm that the Raider can be used competitively, yet you keep refusing to acknowledge that these results exist or matter at all. It's okay if you're not a fan of the Raider, to each their own and you are entitled to fly whatever you like.

And yeah, I like things that are simple and effective. Complexity and convolution of a plan only adds extra layers of where things can go wrong, and the more complex a "logisitics" chain (as in combos, support ships that work with one another) the more susceptible it is to a high drop of performance when it is broken.

I think you have a case of very selective reading my friend Countless players, vassal tournament results and Store Champs results confirm that the Raider can be used competitively, yet you keep refusing to acknowledge that these results exist or matter at all. It's okay if you're not a fan of the Raider, to each their own and you are entitled to fly whatever you like.

And yeah, I like things that are simple and effective. Complexity and convolution of a plan only adds extra layers of where things can go wrong, and the more complex a "logisitics" chain (as in combos, support ships that work with one another) the more susceptible it is to a high drop of performance when it is broken.

No no you're special =) You're quick to draw meta conclusions from minor incidents, no offense but there's enough posts of you that show that