PLAY'S · COMMUNITY · 25 Oct 2026
Players describe Raid as gone, in the same week the chart stopped naming it
The card the deck is named after was changed at the 22 October maintenance. In the posts found since, five people describe the deck as gone, three describe the build that does not use that card as rising, and two are from people still playing it. The daily survey stopped naming the deck on the same two days. These are two different kinds of evidence that happen to point the same way, and neither of them is a result yet.
The search returns a handful of posts and then stops — between seven and eleven per query, every time, which is why counts here are always given as a share of what one search returned and never as a share of players. Handles are not reproduced and nothing is quoted directly; everything below is paraphrase. View counts are the figure X displayed when the post was read.
One further caution, because it nearly went wrong here: searching by engagement rather than recency returns posts from previous years, and X labels an old post with only a day and a month. Of nine results in that ordering, three were from 2021, 2025 and July. Only the six from this October appear below, and one of those six is the publisher's own post, so five of them are players'.
What the chart did while these posts were being written
| Day | Games | 赤白レイド | 赤白轟轟轟(レイド無し) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22 Oct | 46 | 6.5 | 4.3 |
| 23 Oct | 227 | not named | 11.9 |
| 24 Oct | 146 | not named | 11.6 |
The 22nd is about eight hours of play — the game was down from 23:15 the night before until 16:00 that afternoon — so it settles nothing either way. 赤白レイド had been a named slice on 29 of the 31 days this site has recorded, every one from 24 September to 22 October. The two it is missing are the two full days since the change. The build the chart names without that card had a previous best of 4.3 across nine days.
Below the survey's cutoff a deck sits in the unnamed bucket rather than leaving the format, so "not named" is a disappearance from the chart and not from the game. That distinction matters more than usual here, because the posts do not make it.
Five posts describe the deck as gone
A search on the deck's name returned ten posts, all from 25 October. Five of them describe it in the past tense, and they are not describing the same game: one is a list of everything that has gone wrong for a 黒緑QX player since set 37, which includes the line that the fairly favourable 赤白レイド has vanished and that 赤白轟轟轟 increasing is rough (1,101 views). Another says that with Raid reduced, decks that had lowered their guard are being beaten up by mono-red and red-white (384). A third says Raid has disappeared and the Gogogo build is increasing (197). A fourth says the deck was taken from them and they are now grinding through Tier 3 and below (98). A fifth says it is dead and they have gone back to 赤青覇道 (13).
Three of the ten name the same replacement — the red-white build the chart calls 赤白轟轟轟(レイド無し), which is to say the same two civilisations without the changed card in them. The posts write it without the bracket, as 赤白轟轟轟.
Four deck names in the posts on this page are not names this site has recorded and are given as the posts wrote them: 黒緑QX, 赤青覇道, 黒単デュエにゃん and 緑単サソリス. The last two are named as decks from earlier eras of the game rather than current ones. Nothing here turns on any of the four.
One post says what changed about playing it
One of the smallest in the set, at 23 views, is also the most specific. It says the Gogogo build is very strong now and gives a reason: with Raid not around, there is no need to keep your hand at one card or fewer, so a card that was being held for that can be used as a fifth copy of something else.
That is a description of the half of the change this site flagged as the quieter one. 《“B-零朱”レイド》 kept your Fire creatures of cost 7 or less from being destroyed while your hand was one card or fewer; after the change it protects only itself. A player writing that they no longer have to play to that hand size is describing the clause being gone, from the inside.
A second post in the same search says that with Raid gone and the Gogogo build rising, the card SMAPON is being looked at again (197). This site has no record of that card being discussed before.
The biggest posts came within a day of the announcement, and they do not agree
| When | Views | What it says |
|---|---|---|
| 19 Oct, 20:20 | 43,834 | Asks whether a purely beatdown card has ever been nerfed or restricted in this game before. Posted the day before the announcement. |
| 20 Oct, 17:00 | 1,812,557 | The publisher's own announcement post. |
| 20 Oct, 17:17 | 32,812 | The nerf really came; being a meta deck it is understandable that it was disliked, but asks whether beatdown decks can exist from here. |
| 20 Oct, 20:27 | 1,082 | Advice for people who started during the collaboration: during the compensation window the card disassembles for enough points to exchange for any SR, so hold rather than break it early. |
| 20 Oct, 23:55 | 57,386 | Predictions for the format after the change. |
| 22 Oct, 08:22 | 78,311 | Pushes back. People are complaining that only Raid was nerfed, but compared with the eras when 黒単デュエにゃん and 緑単サソリス were strongest, this is better; those times genuinely were not fun. |
The six October posts returned by an engagement-ordered search. The announcement is the publisher's and is listed to show the scale the others sit against.
The largest community post in the set is the one disagreeing with the complaints. That is worth saying plainly, because a page that only collected the unhappy posts could have been built from the same search.
Two are still playing it, and one wants half the change undone
Of the ten posts on the deck's name, one is someone who cleared the 石神のぞみ Legend Battle on the hardest difficulty with it in a single run (307), and one is someone climbing from Silver with the pre-change list (10). A third, from a search on the card itself, proposes that either the Speed Attacker grant or the G・G・G protection be put back as it was, and suggests this would make a good buff for mono-red (105).
A fourth, from 24 October, describes building toward the format-top deck and adds that the key card was harshly weakened only just now (191). Another, from the 23rd, is a one-line elegy for it (155).
The same search, three and a half hours later, was half a different search
The note at the top says the window moves. It moved while this page was being written, so here is what that looks like rather than just the warning.
The deck-name search was run again at 23:35, having first been run at about 20:00. It returned nine posts where the first run returned ten. Five were in both. Five had dropped out — including three of the five quoted above as describing the deck as gone. Four were new.
The five that survived had all gained views in those three and a half hours: 10 to 27, 13 to 24, 23 to 64, 65 to 72, and 1,101 to 1,590. Every view count printed on this page is the figure at the moment it was read and was already wrong by the time the page went up.
The four new ones say much the same as the ten before them: that the Gogogo build had not been trusted to succeed Raid and the balance seems to have held anyway (25 views); that it is exploding while 青魔導具 is not, which may mean things are still hard (96); and, from someone who bought every collaboration avatar and reached Master on both sides, that they cannot keep up with the speed of a world without Raid yet (649).
That applies here. The survey this site records counts what its author classified from the games they saw, and the two red-white builds differ by a card. A page that puts posts and a chart side by side is relying on both being labelled the way it assumes. This is the player making that point, not this site conceding it — but it is the sharpest thing in either reading and it belongs on the page rather than in a footnote.
These four are not added to the twenty-one. The count above belongs to the first reading, and re-counting across two readings of a moving window would produce a number that means even less than the first one.
What this page is not
It is not a measurement of what players think. Twenty-one posts cannot support a sentence beginning "players are". Four searches returned between seven and eleven results each and then stopped; that is the whole sample, and it is not a sample of anything in the statistical sense.
It is also not a verdict on the change. That page has two readings on it and a test still running: whether the deck is still unnamed on the 25th, whose chart publishes on the morning of the 26th. Two days is two days, and this site has a standing example of why — across 17 to 21 October one deck read 11.4, then 26.5, then 14.3, then 22.7, then 20.8, with nothing altered in the game at all.
What can be said is narrower and still worth saying: the people posting about losing to this deck, and the chart that counts it, stopped describing it in the same week. They are independent of each other, which is the only reason they are on the same page.
Of the seven results on the card's name, one was a false match from an unrelated game and is not counted. Of the nine in the engagement-ordered search, three were from 2021, 2025 and July 2026 — identified from the timestamp rather than the displayed label — and one is the publisher's own post, listed above for scale but not counted as a player's.
Deck percentages and game counts are from this site's record of the daily New Division survey, which publishes as images and is read off the chart by hand. The card's behaviour before and after the change is from the publisher's notice of 20 October, described rather than reproduced.