I wonder if the 2.0 Raider will have pegs for docking models.
raider
57 minutes ago, Koing907 said:I wonder if the 2.0 Raider will have pegs for docking models.
As noted elsewhere there is no reason it would. The scales don't match, the docking is inside the hull.
11 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:The scales don't match
is this documented somewhere? I'm pretty sure it was stated somewhere way back when, that the Raider and the C-Roc were 1/270 and the Corvette and the transport were under sized.
12 minutes ago, PanchoX1 said:is this documented somewhere? I'm pretty sure it was stated somewhere way back when, that the Raider and the C-Roc were 1/270 and the Corvette and the transport were under sized.
You can see the Corvus parked next to a Gozanti during one of the Battlefront II missions. The Raider dwarfs the transport by a great margin.
The bright lights in the lower right corner come from a Gozanti's bridge.
Edited by Ryfterek6 minutes ago, PanchoX1 said:is this documented somewhere? I'm pretty sure it was stated somewhere way back when, that the Raider and the C-Roc were 1/270 and the Corvette and the transport were under sized.
If it was Vontoothski take it with a grain of salt.
Both the Canon CR-90 and Raider Corvettes are 150m. At 1/270 scale they should be a little under 22 inches or roughly 55.55 cm long
7 minutes ago, Ryfterek said:You can see the Corvus parked next to a Gozanti during one of the Battlefront II missions. The Raider dwarfs the transport by a great margin.
It is about twice the length.
4 hours ago, GuacCousteau said:Is anyone else just a tiny bit sad not to see that Raider packaged with a TIE Advanced? Or better yet, a TIE Fighter with Inferno Squad markings?
Yeah, I am.
I know most of y'all looked at the fighter as a "fix in the box," but I saw it as "free repaint with your Epic purchase."
4 hours ago, Cuz05 said:Regenning 2 shields a turn is a massive help for these things. Using the recover action was always a sign of rapidly approaching unavoidable doom.
And yet frustrating to see a ship that you could land crits on then Recover 5 shields all at one. I do like the slow and steady approach as an improvement.
3 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:It is about twice the length.
150m vs 63.8m makes it closer to 2.5 times the length.
2 minutes ago, Ryfterek said:150m vs 63.8m makes it closer to 2.5 times the length.
I must have been remembering the C-ROC variant of the Gozanti's 73.91m when I estimated that. (2 x Gozanti = 127.6m, 2 x C-ROC = 147.82m).
Two shield regen seems good at first glance, if they use 2.0 rules for the reinforce than they will be much more susceptible to chip damage.
3 minutes ago, All Shields Forward said:Two shield regen seems good at first glance, if they use 2.0 rules for the reinforce than they will be much more susceptible to chip damage.
They'll use the new rules. It keeps everything consistent and easy to learn.
Curious for the sake of experimentation; how would you fly one of these in a 200-pt game? It seems trivially easy to just get behind it and then destroy it to death, so your only plan is to keep regenning for all you're worth to save points, but it's a losing battle in any case. I guess get points on something before they get there, and then bank as much as possible to get them in your 180° arc? Still seems awfully difficult.
1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:If it was Vontoothski take it with a grain of salt.
lol. for sure!
nah this was a few years back. Wasn't the Raider basically invented by FFG? I remember reading that the model was to scale. but that was long before things like Battlefront II. So it's perfectly reasonable to think that more recent Canon entries have changed the size of the ship to something different. Whether that's the case or not, the canon images clearly show what we put on the table is scaled differently than what a true to life one could be. thanks for the references.
13 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:Curious for the sake of experimentation; how would you fly one of these in a 200-pt game? It seems trivially easy to just get behind it and then destroy it to death, so your only plan is to keep regenning for all you're worth to save points, but it's a losing battle in any case. I guess get points on something before they get there, and then bank as much as possible to get them in your 180° arc? Still seems awfully difficult.
180 is your Primary, but secondaries may be have other arcs.
1 hour ago, PanchoX1 said:Wasn't the Raider basically invented by FFG?
According to wiki, yes. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Raider-class_corvette
First canon appearance was the new Thrawn novels (and then Battlefront II).
Edited by wildcrdj1 hour ago, ClassicalMoser said:Curious for the sake of experimentation; how would you fly one of these in a 200-pt game? It seems trivially easy to just get behind it and then destroy it to death, so your only plan is to keep regenning for all you're worth to save points, but it's a losing battle in any case. I guess get points on something before they get there, and then bank as much as possible to get them in your 180° arc? Still seems awfully difficult.
Setup in the corner, do a straight 1 or 2 then just do 0 banks back and forth like a salmon trying to get upstream to mate. Just make sure you have a turret that can cover your rear.
1 hour ago, PanchoX1 said:lol. for sure!
nah this was a few years back. Wasn't the Raider basically invented by FFG? I remember reading that the model was to scale. but that was long before things like Battlefront II. So it's perfectly reasonable to think that more recent Canon entries have changed the size of the ship to something different. Whether that's the case or not, the canon images clearly show what we put on the table is scaled differently than what a true to life one could be. thanks for the references.
As I recall from when they announced the Raider, it is supposed to be roughly the same size as- and is scaled roughly the same as- the CR-90. Neither of those ships, nor the GR-75, are at the same 1/270 scale as the rest of the ships in the game.
Which means you have it flipped: the Gozanti and the C-Roc are supposed to be on 1/270 scale and the Raider is not.
4 minutes ago, Tervlon said:Setup in the corner, do a straight 1 or 2 then just do 0 banks back and forth like a salmon trying to get upstream to mate. Just make sure you have a turret that can cover your rear.
Also begs the question: Will huge ships finally get 45° turns? I don't see how ships with a 30° turn can stay on a 3'x3' board...
8 hours ago, ClassicalMoser said:Also begs the question: Will huge ships finally get 45° turns? I don't see how sh ips with a 30° turn can stay on a 3'x3' board...
Most likely no :
8 hours ago, Punning Pundit said:As I recall from when they announced the Raider, it is supposed to be roughly the same size as- and is scaled roughly the same as- the CR-90. Neither of those ships, nor the GR-75, are at the same 1/270 scale as the rest of the ships in the game.
Which means you have it flipped: the Gozanti and the C-Roc are supposed to be on 1/270 scale and the Raider is not.
This is correct. The raider has always been the same length as the corvette, and has always been at the different scale.
I wonder how the Armada executor compares size wise to what the raider would be in 1/270...
I am pretty sure the two sets of numbers on the energy/shield dial is just Left side: current, Right side: maximum. They are all the same tools, but each ship has different values. It will just make it easier to not go over your limit when you regain them.
31 minutes ago, ID X T said:I am pretty sure the two sets of numbers on the energy/shield dial is just Left side: current, Right side: maximum. They are all the same tools, but each ship has different values. It will just make it easier to not go over your limit when you regain them.
Why no "/" in between the numbers then?
This friggin counter is the biggest mystery of the whole huge ship fuss. It's poorly designed, either because it's unreadable that it stores two different values for both shields and energy, or it's poorly designed because it overcomplicates counting up to low, 20ish double digits by introducing another dial.
10 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:I wonder how the Armada executor compares size wise to what the raider would be in 1/270...
The SSD is 24.5” long.
So, a bit longer than the Raider should be. The SSD is really flat though.
Edited by ForgottenloreCaptain Canady needs to be in the Raider expansion...
Five bloody minutes ago.