I would like to point out that your own data supports several assertions I have made elsewhere, which is that the meta is:

• Favorable to Rebels (and they are 71% of winners, as opposed to 29% of the Imperials)
• Favorable to Flotillas (90% of rebel winners use a GR-75 and 100% of Imperial winners use a Gozanti)
• Unfavorable to large ships (20% of rebel winners use the MC80 pickle, 10% use the Liberty, and 25% use the ISD)
• Average fleet size and average deployments are both highest for winners than any other category
• 29% of winners use a large ship across both factions, but 93% use a flotilla

Again, I'm also not saying I am unhappy with the game. I'm just saying MSU is clearly a dominant strategy right now and that while you can play around it sometimes but not always at Regionals, the fact that large ships failed significantly at worlds (where, essentially, you have very few weak players) only reinforces to me the trend that Shmitty's data is already showing!

To reiterate: I'm not saying this is bad, it's just a thing. I'm only making the prediction that large ships will slowly fade into obscurity unless something shakes up the meta.

Edit: if there's one thing I don't like, it's actually the Rebel / Imperial disparity. That is what I am hoping wave 5 actually shapes up, because the bore will be going to tournaments that slowly evolve to be 80% rebels or more.

As opposed to the previous Regionals season that was all Demolisher, all the time since Wave 1? While I don't want either faction dominating (I'd rather have SKILL dominating) I wonder how much of this is due to inexperience playing against Rebels. I know in my last two regionals I had several opponents who were not prepared for Ackbar or Yavaris because of how little they had done anything but fight Empire.

Truthfully the Arquitens has me excited to try an Imperial build for the first time ever.

I would like to point out that your own data supports several assertions I have made elsewhere, which is that the meta is:

• Favorable to Rebels (and they are 71% of winners, as opposed to 29% of the Imperials)
• Favorable to Flotillas (90% of rebel winners use a GR-75 and 100% of Imperial winners use a Gozanti)
• Unfavorable to large ships (20% of rebel winners use the MC80 pickle, 10% use the Liberty, and 25% use the ISD)
• Average fleet size and average deployments are both highest for winners than any other category
• 29% of winners use a large ship across both factions, but 93% use a flotilla

One other concern about ISD's specifically: they were over-represented in the bottom 25%. I think that warrants a deeper dive into the numbers to see if we can isolate why some ISD fleets didn't work.

I wonder how much of that is growing experience learning how to take down ISDs and inexperience amongst new players in how to defend it. I know when wave 2 dropped a lot of people were expecting to just be able to drop the ISD and faceroll to victory. It's more of a finesse ship than most people are prepared for.

Oh. Well if we have anecdotal evidence prior to the release of three squadron expansions, then I guess we can put all concerns to rest.

Evidence that a wide variety of fleets are currently successful: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jHYRewqhbVX6HSaWHNAPHTtPxW2uAaVTzYMq5D0-0pg/edit?usp=sharing

Are these from the future? I'm trying to see how this address "prior to the release of three..."

well, we can't know that there will be no problems, but it seems unlikely that if a wide variety of builds work now, then the new squads will break the game.

But, I'll put a tracker in to break out wave 5 squads from wave 1 & 2 squads. If we see wave 5 making up much more than 50% of fighters in the regionals winners, then I'd agree that they may be too good. I'm expecting that they will have a smaller impact than wave 3 did on the meta. (as of today, wave 1 = 800 fighters, wave 2=303)

Keep in mind when tracking that data that people will be running them just so they can play with their new toys

I would like to point out that your own data supports several assertions I have made elsewhere, which is that the meta is:

• Favorable to Rebels (and they are 71% of winners, as opposed to 29% of the Imperials)
• Favorable to Flotillas (90% of rebel winners use a GR-75 and 100% of Imperial winners use a Gozanti)
• Unfavorable to large ships (20% of rebel winners use the MC80 pickle, 10% use the Liberty, and 25% use the ISD)
• Average fleet size and average deployments are both highest for winners than any other category
• 29% of winners use a large ship across both factions, but 93% use a flotilla

Again, I'm also not saying I am unhappy with the game. I'm just saying MSU is clearly a dominant strategy right now and that while you can play around it sometimes but not always at Regionals, the fact that large ships failed significantly at worlds (where, essentially, you have very few weak players) only reinforces to me the trend that Shmitty's data is already showing!

To reiterate: I'm not saying this is bad, it's just a thing. I'm only making the prediction that large ships will slowly fade into obscurity unless something shakes up the meta.

Edit: if there's one thing I don't like, it's actually the Rebel / Imperial disparity. That is what I am hoping wave 5 actually shapes up, because the bore will be going to tournaments that slowly evolve to be 80% rebels or more.

As opposed to the previous Regionals season that was all Demolisher, all the time since Wave 1? While I don't want either faction dominating (I'd rather have SKILL dominating) I wonder how much of this is due to inexperience playing against Rebels. I know in my last two regionals I had several opponents who were not prepared for Ackbar or Yavaris because of how little they had done anything but fight Empire.

Truthfully the Arquitens has me excited to try an Imperial build for the first time ever.

Completely agree with the lack of playing against rebels premise. I had an experienced player not entirely sure what yavaris did, which was simply due to the influx of demo imo. If your not familiar with yavaris and how to deal with it you're going to run into problems real fast.

Oh. Well if we have anecdotal evidence prior to the release of three squadron expansions, then I guess we can put all concerns to rest.

Evidence that a wide variety of fleets are currently successful: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jHYRewqhbVX6HSaWHNAPHTtPxW2uAaVTzYMq5D0-0pg/edit?usp=sharing

Are these from the future? I'm trying to see how this address "prior to the release of three..."

well, we can't know that there will be no problems, but it seems unlikely that if a wide variety of builds work now, then the new squads will break the game.

But, I'll put a tracker in to break out wave 5 squads from wave 1 & 2 squads. If we see wave 5 making up much more than 50% of fighters in the regionals winners, then I'd agree that they may be too good. I'm expecting that they will have a smaller impact than wave 3 did on the meta. (as of today, wave 1 = 800 fighters, wave 2=303)

Keep in mind when tracking that data that people will be running them just so they can play with their new toys

Good point. Also, while wave 5 is only 33% of generics, it's approximately 60% of uniques. (16/34 aces & 8/8 non-ace uniques) So, if 50% of the aces are wave 5, that's probably not a problem.

I think the clearest sign of a problem would be if wave 5 is over-represented at the top tables compared to the general regionals lists. It will definitely be interesting to see how wave 5 surges & normalizes over the next year.

With regards to Imp/Rebel disparity-

While I would agree that the efficiency of the GR75 v the Gozanti is a contributing factor, I would argue that more to blame is the greater list diversity available to the Rebellion. At least thats how its percieved over here

I haven't been able to play much (only against my brother as my play group is mainly X wing, 40k and magic) but armada seems so much better balanced than the atms race that X wing and 40k have become.

I have been messing with so many lists and admirals that all seem like they can do well, even with weaknesses, but even with that it still looks like this can come down to skill and objectives in the end

With regards to Imp/Rebel disparity-

While I would agree that the efficiency of the GR75 v the Gozanti is a contributing factor, I would argue that more to blame is the greater list diversity available to the Rebellion. At least thats how its percieved over here

I'd agree with that overall as well. I believe that wave 5 will be correcting for that. The Arquitens not only offers a new type of ship altogether for Imperials but it also really raises the stock of some commanders looking for a(nother) core ship (Vader, Tagge) to build a fleet around. Jerrjerrod and Tua are also great adds for VSDs and ISDs. Tech options like Captain Jonus and TIE Phantoms and mixed-role squadrons like Decimators and Defenders also seem to open up a moderate squadron investment (roughly the 70-100 point range) strategy where previously it always felt like a moderate investment there was either too many points ("I went overkill on fighters") or too few points ("I've spent this many points already, I should put in some more bomber and/or support squadrons to create a better Rhymerball").

In short, I'm pretty excited about it as a primarily-Imperials player. I'm expecting wave 5 to blow the Imperial options wide open, which should allow for numerous options for both Rebels and Imperials.

I would like to point out that your own data supports several assertions I have made elsewhere, which is that the meta is:

• Favorable to Rebels (and they are 71% of winners, as opposed to 29% of the Imperials)
• Favorable to Flotillas (90% of rebel winners use a GR-75 and 100% of Imperial winners use a Gozanti)
• Unfavorable to large ships (20% of rebel winners use the MC80 pickle, 10% use the Liberty, and 25% use the ISD)
• Average fleet size and average deployments are both highest for winners than any other category
• 29% of winners use a large ship across both factions, but 93% use a flotilla

Again, I'm also not saying I am unhappy with the game. I'm just saying MSU is clearly a dominant strategy right now and that while you can play around it sometimes but not always at Regionals, the fact that large ships failed significantly at worlds (where, essentially, you have very few weak players) only reinforces to me the trend that Shmitty's data is already showing!

To reiterate: I'm not saying this is bad, it's just a thing. I'm only making the prediction that large ships will slowly fade into obscurity unless something shakes up the meta.

Edit: if there's one thing I don't like, it's actually the Rebel / Imperial disparity. That is what I am hoping wave 5 actually shapes up, because the bore will be going to tournaments that slowly evolve to be 80% rebels or more.

Isn't great to have actual data to point at for these discussions! As soon as I get reports from this weekend's events I plan on a long blog post looking at what the data is telling us and comparing it to last season.

On a couple of your points:

• I don't see the meta as too favorable to Rebels. Yes they are winning more, but the Imperial to Rebel ratio for the Top 4 and Overall are almost identical. I trust the Top 4 data more than the winners data for overall performance.
• Lots of flotillas, but lots of different uses for them. They are enabling a variety of builds which is really cool.
• Large ships are under-performing, but again it is not as bad at the Top 4 level.

I don't think large ships will vanish to obscurity. I also expect the Rebel/Imperial ratio to even out as players figure out some new options.

Oh. Well if we have anecdotal evidence prior to the release of three squadron expansions, then I guess we can put all concerns to rest.

Evidence that a wide variety of fleets are currently successful: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jHYRewqhbVX6HSaWHNAPHTtPxW2uAaVTzYMq5D0-0pg/edit?usp=sharing

Are these from the future? I'm trying to see how this address "prior to the release of three..."

well, we can't know that there will be no problems, but it seems unlikely that if a wide variety of builds work now, then the new squads will break the game.

But, I'll put a tracker in to break out wave 5 squads from wave 1 & 2 squads. If we see wave 5 making up much more than 50% of fighters in the regionals winners, then I'd agree that they may be too good. I'm expecting that they will have a smaller impact than wave 3 did on the meta. (as of today, wave 1 = 800 fighters, wave 2=303)

Keep in mind when tracking that data that people will be running them just so they can play with their new toys

Good point. Also, while wave 5 is only 33% of generics, it's approximately 60% of uniques. (16/34 aces & 8/8 non-ace uniques) So, if 50% of the aces are wave 5, that's probably not a problem.

I think the clearest sign of a problem would be if wave 5 is over-represented at the top tables compared to the general regionals lists. It will definitely be interesting to see how wave 5 surges & normalizes over the next year.

Have to be a little careful how you parse that though. CorCon Aces/Uniques for wave one minis serve two purposes IMO;

- One, to provide more options in the campaign

- Two, to keep the more thematic base TIE/Rebel squadrons in the loop and on the table

With regards to Imp/Rebel disparity-

While I would agree that the efficiency of the GR75 v the Gozanti is a contributing factor, I would argue that more to blame is the greater list diversity available to the Rebellion. At least thats how its percieved over here

I'd agree with that overall as well. I believe that wave 5 will be correcting for that. The Arquitens not only offers a new type of ship altogether for Imperials but it also really raises the stock of some commanders looking for a(nother) core ship (Vader, Tagge) to build a fleet around. Jerrjerrod and Tua are also great adds for VSDs and ISDs. Tech options like Captain Jonus and TIE Phantoms and mixed-role squadrons like Decimators and Defenders also seem to open up a moderate squadron investment (roughly the 70-100 point range) strategy where previously it always felt like a moderate investment there was either too many points ("I went overkill on fighters") or too few points ("I've spent this many points already, I should put in some more bomber and/or support squadrons to create a better Rhymerball").

In short, I'm pretty excited about it as a primarily-Imperials player. I'm expecting wave 5 to blow the Imperial options wide open, which should allow for numerous options for both Rebels and Imperials.

Not to drag this out too much, but I did want to add one more line of thought from the list of "why Snipafist is excited for wave 5 Imperials" regarding Gozantis. It has been noted that it feels like Gozantis are worse than GR75s. In wave 4 I would agree with this basic sentiment (not extremely strongly, but the generic sentiment I think is correct): Gozantis do on occasion get some use out of their blue dice against ships but it can be very iffy. Once flotillas get to medium range of anything, their life expectancy tends to plummet and so I find myself often using their blue dice as a kind of defensive armament to take a shield or so off an approaching ship before (hopefully) jumping away rather than seeing them as an active benefit I'm looking to maximize. If I could take 5 points off the Gozanti's fleet cost and field it with no battery dice (i.e. make it into a GR75), I likely would do so every time.

However, with wave 5 the Imperials received some indirect Gozanti buffs not available to their GR75 counterparts that offer some intriguing benefits. These include (but I am sure are not limited to):

• Minister Tua+Electronic Countermeasures to make a Gozanti sure to survive against at least one attack. Great for a commander chariot (likely with Comms Net and/or Boosted Comms) that likes to skirt the edge of the battlefield avoiding most serious threats but is uncomfortable with the idea of an H9/Home One-aided long bomb that could go horribly. Also swell for a Slicer Tools+Suppressor Gozanti that's looking to go on an annoyance spree.
• The Arquitens' Hand of Justice title looks superb for refreshing defense tokens. For larger ships it would obviously be the Brace. However, Gozantis are quite happy to get their Scatter refreshed in the right circumstances as well. Extra fun if you're also using the Tua+ECMs combo mentioned above.
• The Arquitens' Centicore title and/or the Relay 2 offered by Lambda Shuttles are both great methods for getting your Squadrons 2 on Gozantis to work consistently without exposing your Gozantis to excessive danger. It's not uncommon for flotillas to find themselves in a situation where they need to decide between continuing to make your squadrons effective (through commands) or staying alive. Relay 2 tech allows your Gozantis to choose both, and they come in affordable packages - 15 points for one Lambda shuttle and/or 3 points for the Centicore (assuming you're already set on running an Arquitens, of course). Rebels can try this with two LCX-100s, but it comes at the hefty price tag of 30 points.
• TIE Phantoms/Cloaking squadrons make great use of Jamming Fields, using Cloak to enter or exit them as appropriate to their circumstances.
• The Vector title becomes more useful the more speed 4 or less non-Heavy squadrons Imperials get. I can see some use for it with TIE Phantoms in particular, but Lambda shuttles, particularly with their Strategic keyword, seem to benefit as well. Final honorable mention to the Decimator ace here too.

In short, things are looking up for the ol' Gozanti vis a vis the GR75 in wave 5.

All good points on the goz snipa.

Raider?OEs & agent kallus & instigator. carve squadrons dead.

What a waste of what, 70 points?

60 points. raider 1, instigator, kallus, ordnance experts/assault proton torpedoes. i wouldnt call rerollable black dice with assault proton torpedoes wasted points. specially when they cann kill Intel through rerollable dual (or even triple if the intel is unique like dengar) sprays.

I have never found instigator with OE to be a waste of points, kallus just adds to the fun, a great ship, all for less than 55 pionts.

My Regionals isn't until Feb. Mark my words, I'm bringing my might space pickle and it's going to be glorious for my main fishman.

One other concern about ISD's specifically: they were over-represented in the bottom 25%.

OK, I was wrong about this. It's not that ISD's are over-represented in the bottom 25%. Its that non-ISD Imperial lists were under-represented in the bottom 25%. 43 lists took ISDs to regionals. 10 of them ended in the bottom 25%, about what you would expect.

Interestingly, the squadron wings of those bottom-25% ISD lists were very bomber light. All regional ISD lists took 252 fighters, with 76 bombers or firesprays. The bottom 25% ISD lists took 56 fighters, but only 6 bombers/firesprays. And the ones that did take bombers didn't take fighter cover.

I looked at the top-4 ISD lists, and we see a number of bomber-light lists there too. 13/59 squads were bombers. 3 all-fighter lists, 3 lists had Rhymer or Boba as the only bombers, and there were 2 rhymer + bombers (firespray or TIE)

Heck, 2 of the top 4 ISD lists were 2 ship lists with few bombers. So, people are performing well with lists that are far from the current meta.

Raider?OEs & agent kallus & instigator. carve squadrons dead.

What a waste of what, 70 points?

60 points. raider 1, instigator, kallus, ordnance experts/assault proton torpedoes. i wouldnt call rerollable black dice with assault proton torpedoes wasted points. specially when they cann kill Intel through rerollable dual (or even triple if the intel is unique like dengar) sprays.

I have never found instigator with OE to be a waste of points, kallus just adds to the fun, a great ship, all for less than 55 pionts.

I've never gotten the hang of using Raiders as anti-squadron platforms. Against Rhymerballs, the bombers sit outside black range. If you run the Raider into the ball in order to lock them down with Instigator, you've got to sit through an entire round of getting shot by all that firepower on a ship with no redirects. Against Rebel bomber swarms, they also hang back before committing with squadron commands.

The issue I always run into when trying to perform an anti-bomber primary role with my Raiders is that I might get 1 turn of good anti-squadron fire that deals 2 damage to every squadron around me. After that, the Raider explodes. It can't handle 2 turns of concentrated bomber fire.

Obviously other people aren't having this problem. How are y'all managing your Raiders so they kill squadrons and survive?

They aren't. This is actually the big secret of the Raider: it is not good. At all.

Raider?OEs & agent kallus & instigator. carve squadrons dead.

What a waste of what, 70 points?

60 points. raider 1, instigator, kallus, ordnance experts/assault proton torpedoes. i wouldnt call rerollable black dice with assault proton torpedoes wasted points. specially when they cann kill Intel through rerollable dual (or even triple if the intel is unique like dengar) sprays.

I have never found instigator with OE to be a waste of points, kallus just adds to the fun, a great ship, all for less than 55 pionts.

I've never gotten the hang of using Raiders as anti-squadron platforms. Against Rhymerballs, the bombers sit outside black range. If you run the Raider into the ball in order to lock them down with Instigator, you've got to sit through an entire round of getting shot by all that firepower on a ship with no redirects. Against Rebel bomber swarms, they also hang back before committing with squadron commands.

The issue I always run into when trying to perform an anti-bomber primary role with my Raiders is that I might get 1 turn of good anti-squadron fire that deals 2 damage to every squadron around me. After that, the Raider explodes. It can't handle 2 turns of concentrated bomber fire.

Obviously other people aren't having this problem. How are y'all managing your Raiders so they kill squadrons and survive?

Run Tie/F along side so they have to be shot first.

I agree it's really hard to get the raider into position to be effective. The fighter war tends to happen in the middle of all the line ships, if the raider goes in there he gets melted fast. Another down side to the raider is if I'm taking it for anti squadron I'm probably better off with Howlrunner and 3 interceptors for roughly the same investment. I want the raider to work, but that ship really needs a redirect. For what it costs, 2 naked gozantis fill its role well and have better survivability.

I agree it's really hard to get the raider into position to be effective. The fighter war tends to happen in the middle of all the line ships, if the raider goes in there he gets melted fast. Another down side to the raider is if I'm taking it for anti squadron I'm probably better off with Howlrunner and 3 interceptors for roughly the same investment. I want the raider to work, but that ship really needs a redirect. For what it costs, 2 naked gozantis fill its role well and have better survivability.

Just wait for the Flechette Torpedoes. Raider I+FTs+OEs+Instigator. Pair it with a couple token TIEs and you're going to be able to massively disrupt an enemy bomber ball at critical points in the game.

I've never really gotten the Raider hate. Does everyone just fly them straight into a ships dominate arc or something? I've used them and seen them used as very effective flankers. They can hit well above their weight class with double arcing APTs.

I agree it's really hard to get the raider into position to be effective. The fighter war tends to happen in the middle of all the line ships, if the raider goes in there he gets melted fast. Another down side to the raider is if I'm taking it for anti squadron I'm probably better off with Howlrunner and 3 interceptors for roughly the same investment. I want the raider to work, but that ship really needs a redirect. For what it costs, 2 naked gozantis fill its role well and have better survivability.

Just wait for the Flechette Torpedoes. Raider I+FTs+OEs+Instigator. Pair it with a couple token TIEs and you're going to be able to massively disrupt an enemy bomber ball at critical points in the game.

I've never really gotten the Raider hate. Does everyone just fly them straight into a ships dominate arc or something? I've used them and seen them used as very effective flankers. They can hit well above their weight class with double arcing APTs.

Well they can hide behind dust clouds now, so that might help them see more play. They always felt too expensive to me for what they bring to the table. I find ships that heavily rely on black dice really need first player, and squadron heavy fleets are better off with second player. Probably a great topic for another thread.

Obviously other people aren't having this problem. How are y'all managing your Raiders so they kill squadrons and survive?

The Raider in most applications works best by having its prey come to it and then activating to take a chunk out of it, trapdoor-spider style. The only exception is if you get first activation you can always jump it in on round X and then activate it round X+1 and run away. With that said, I find they operate well as bunkers for your TIEs to hang out near (usually on the sides, leaving the front open) and near your other ships so they're not easily ignored by squadrons. An enemy bomber blob needs to get to your ships to be effective, which means the impetus is on them to come to you rather than the other way around. By keeping your TIEs very tight on the flanks of the Raiders, enemy fighters will need to get into flak range to get the alpha strike on them (sometimes double-arced, too). The flank TIEs ensure that bombers going after the Raider can only get 1-2 squadrons in before they're engaged, which is plenty to keep the Raider healthy. Intel can make your TIEs heavy, but that requires the Intel squadron to get into flak range to do. It's important to note that putting your TIEs in front of the Raider can create problems where engaging them is possible without getting into flak range of the Raider. Obviously you'd prefer to avoid that.

Re: Rhymerballs it gets a bit more troublesome. The good news is that you can use your Evades at medium range to reroll bomber attacks. The bad news is that obviously Rhymer and co don't have the same incentive to get into flak range as regular bombers do. If you're using multiple Raiders, you can send them to opposing sides of a Rhymerball to flak next turn. If you're using one, then a movement course that takes it into short range of the Rhymerball with the entire thing in your front arc is a death sentence. What I've found works better than you'd expect is to land the Raider in the middle of the Rhymerball. This will usually separate the support elements (TIE Advanced, Rhymer, Intel) into areas where they can't protect the entirety of the blob any more and it causes the bombers that want to attack your Raider into different hull zones where your 2 shields in each zone can usually succeed in keeping you alive against the attacks that will be more spread out.

It's very important to note that in either case, fighter squadrons (TIE Fighters usually) are essential for making it all come together. The regular TIEs keep Raiders used in a conventional sense from getting overwhelmed by the initial bomber attack and they can pin down elements of the Rhymerball to keep the Raider alive for at least one turn versus Rhymerballs. TIEs keep non-Intel squadrons stuck in place where the Raiders can keep attacking them without worry about getting bombed. TIEs also help finish off squadrons wounded by flak (or vice versa, the Raider finishes off squadrons wounded by TIEs). I'd also note that Raiders used in this way are generally best at speed 1 or 2 where they can wait out the expected bomber wave and then circle the furball, presenting shielded sides and continuing to flak when appropriate. Zoom up to higher speeds when necessary to get the jump on something or run away from an area that's getting too hot, but otherwise speeds 1 and 2 are fine for anti-squadron purposes.

I've never really gotten the Raider hate. Does everyone just fly them straight into a ships dominate arc or something? I've used them and seen them used as very effective flankers. They can hit well above their weight class with double arcing APTs.

I've seen a lot of Raider screw-ups and a lot of it comes down to people not knowing how to use them. Lots of flying them straight into certain death suicidally at high speed and then complaining that the ship itself is the problem. When you know how to use them, I agree that they're spectacularly punchy and versatile little angry triangles but they are not very forgiving of mistakes.

Completely agree with the lack of playing against rebels premise. I had an experienced player not entirely sure what yavaris did, which was simply due to the influx of demo imo. If you're not familiar with Yavaris and how to deal with it you're going to run into problems real fast.

My inexperience with Yavaris is not due to inexperience flying against Rebels. We surely have enough Rebel scum in my environs, but these lowlives just don't seem to take Yavaris. Also, I'm not one of those fair-weather Imperials who dabbles in flying for the Rebellion occasionally.

In other words, it may have been idiosyncratic, and it may have been a local phenomenon.

Raider?OEs & agent kallus & instigator. carve squadrons dead.

What a waste of what, 70 points?

60 points. raider 1, instigator, kallus, ordnance experts/assault proton torpedoes. i wouldnt call rerollable black dice with assault proton torpedoes wasted points. specially when they cann kill Intel through rerollable dual (or even triple if the intel is unique like dengar) sprays.

I have never found instigator with OE to be a waste of points, kallus just adds to the fun, a great ship, all for less than 55 pionts.

I've never gotten the hang of using Raiders as anti-squadron platforms. Against Rhymerballs, the bombers sit outside black range. If you run the Raider into the ball in order to lock them down with Instigator, you've got to sit through an entire round of getting shot by all that firepower on a ship with no redirects. Against Rebel bomber swarms, they also hang back before committing with squadron commands. The issue I always run into when trying to perform an anti-bomber primary role with my Raiders is that I might get 1 turn of good anti-squadron fire that deals 2 damage to every squadron around me. After that, the Raider explodes. It can't handle 2 turns of concentrated bomber fire. Obviously other people aren't having this problem. How are y'all managing your Raiders so they kill squadrons and survive?

Run Tie/F along side so they have to be shot first.

As undead guy said. You run it with a group of ties, you aim instigator at the Intel ship and the ties are used to engage the bombers. You now have a bomber wing that's going no place. The Intel ship can't move, the majority of the bombers are engaged with shooting 8 point ties before they get close to insti or any other ship, if you are playing another good AAA ship ( another raider) the bomber list will be sitting there taking having to take 2 damage from each ship for generics (so four), if they have been double arced they will probably be dead. So even if inst gets taken down next round you will have ( if not actually) functionally destroyed the bomber wing. The other great thing with insti is that if there are no fighter/bombers to kill he churns out a good amount of damage to ships ( if you play him as a trapping piece).

I find ships that heavily rely on black dice really need first player,

I'm not sure I agree. Certainly, first player+activation advantage makes them easier to use. But activation advantage also should give you the ability to park in front of a target ship and force them into range of your blacks before you activate. This can actually give you a comparable concentration of fire to a last/first activation, with the added advantage of playing your own objective.

So really, activation advantage is a bigger deal than initiative for black-dice ships, imo. With the caveat that I play Rebels so I see the world through MC30-colored glasses.