The people who hate Falcons tend to be the people who love flying Interceptors. In a casual setting, if your opponent is a lover of all Y-wings or, as happened with me, a high PS Falcon, introduce them to your friends Rhymer, Jonus and Advanced Proton Torpedoes. When you've got five hits coming at ya, the weakness of the turretship, 1 agility, starts to bite.

Is it a subjective perspective that 360 degrees covers 4 times as much area as 90 degrees?

Are you talking the YT or including the blaster/ion turrets? Although it ignores base size the R1-2 turrets only cover 78% more area than a ship's primary weapon's arc. If we exclude the overlap the R3 portion of the primary covers another 3.9 units of area while the R1-2 turret adds 9.4 units and the "shared" area is Pi (3.14). Turrets do get to cover more area than a ship's primary weapon but isn't that what they are equipped for?

I wasn't really talking about the total area covered, just addressing the ridiculous idea that a TIE fighter is easier to fly because you simply have 2 of them.

I'm including any ship with a 360 arc (whether it is an ion turret or built-in like the falcon). They shoot every turn, whether the target is in front of them, behind them, or to the side. If a TIE fighter outmaneuvers a turret, the turret shoots anyway. If the turret outmaneuvers the TIE, the turret shoots, but the TIE may very well not be able to. You can make errors and still fire to full effect which is not true of other ships.

Are there counters? Of course. As I've said over and over and over again (yet people are still somehow confused by). I'm not saying they're unbeatable, I'm saying they are easy to use. That, in itself, is not a problem. But when a person takes the easiest ship to fly and then takes 4 of them, they aren't trying to build a fun list. They're not trying to outmaneuver the opponent, they're trying to make clever maneuvering as irrelevant as they possibly can.

Maneuvering is not they entirety of what the game is about, but attempting to make it irrelevant is pretty unsporting. And if someone does win with the list, they (rightfully) will not get credit for their flying ability because flying ability is not required to perform. On the other hand, to defeat an-all turret list, flying ability is required. One player must fly well, the other need not to.

If they took five Y-wings they're practically asking for interceptors to sit at range three and blow their engines off. Y-wings maneuver like diesel locomotives with no wheels.

Is it a subjective perspective that 360 degrees covers 4 times as much area as 90 degrees?

Are you talking the YT or including the blaster/ion turrets? Although it ignores base size the R1-2 turrets only cover 78% more area than a ship's primary weapon's arc. If we exclude the overlap the R3 portion of the primary covers another 3.9 units of area while the R1-2 turret adds 9.4 units and the "shared" area is Pi (3.14). Turrets do get to cover more area than a ship's primary weapon but isn't that what they are equipped for?

I wasn't really talking about the total area covered, just addressing the ridiculous idea that a TIE fighter is easier to fly because you simply have 2 of them.

I'm including any ship with a 360 arc (whether it is an ion turret or built-in like the falcon). They shoot every turn, whether the target is in front of them, behind them, or to the side. If a TIE fighter outmaneuvers a turret, the turret shoots anyway. If the turret outmaneuvers the TIE, the turret shoots, but the TIE may very well not be able to. You can make errors and still fire to full effect which is not true of other ships.

Are there counters? Of course. As I've said over and over and over again (yet people are still somehow confused by). I'm not saying they're unbeatable, I'm saying they are easy to use. That, in itself, is not a problem. But when a person takes the easiest ship to fly and then takes 4 of them, they aren't trying to build a fun list. They're not trying to outmaneuver the opponent, they're trying to make clever maneuvering as irrelevant as they possibly can.

Maneuvering is not they entirety of what the game is about, but attempting to make it irrelevant is pretty unsporting. And if someone does win with the list, they (rightfully) will not get credit for their flying ability because flying ability is not required to perform. On the other hand, to defeat an-all turret list, flying ability is required. One player must fly well, the other need not to.

A list of all Turret ships will lose nearly every game. Because Turrets are not easy to use, just easy to get a shot with. But those shots are rarely powerful or important.(Again, this excludes the Falcon, which pays through the nose in points to be the best ship in the game. Which it is. But it's the most expensive by a ton.

Is it a subjective perspective that 360 degrees covers 4 times as much area as 90 degrees?

Are you talking the YT or including the blaster/ion turrets? Although it ignores base size the R1-2 turrets only cover 78% more area than a ship's primary weapon's arc. If we exclude the overlap the R3 portion of the primary covers another 3.9 units of area while the R1-2 turret adds 9.4 units and the "shared" area is Pi (3.14). Turrets do get to cover more area than a ship's primary weapon but isn't that what they are equipped for?

I wasn't really talking about the total area covered, just addressing the ridiculous idea that a TIE fighter is easier to fly because you simply have 2 of them.

I'm including any ship with a 360 arc (whether it is an ion turret or built-in like the falcon). They shoot every turn, whether the target is in front of them, behind them, or to the side. If a TIE fighter outmaneuvers a turret, the turret shoots anyway. If the turret outmaneuvers the TIE, the turret shoots, but the TIE may very well not be able to. You can make errors and still fire to full effect which is not true of other ships.

Are there counters? Of course. As I've said over and over and over again (yet people are still somehow confused by). I'm not saying they're unbeatable, I'm saying they are easy to use. That, in itself, is not a problem. But when a person takes the easiest ship to fly and then takes 4 of them, they aren't trying to build a fun list. They're not trying to outmaneuver the opponent, they're trying to make clever maneuvering as irrelevant as they possibly can.

Maneuvering is not they entirety of what the game is about, but attempting to make it irrelevant is pretty unsporting. And if someone does win with the list, they (rightfully) will not get credit for their flying ability because flying ability is not required to perform. On the other hand, to defeat an-all turret list, flying ability is required. One player must fly well, the other need not to.

Sigh.

There will always be people who do whatever it takes to win. Maybe you do not find 4 turreted Y-Wings fun... maybe your opponent fielding them does. Honestly I get a kick out of Ionizing my opponent onto an asteroid. Unsporting is subjective. Fun is also subjective. Your definitions of them may or may not be the same as another's.

There's a saying I'm trying to remember. I think it goes "plan for the worst, hope for the best." If you feel you will have to deal with that, plan to fight an opponent who uses "unfun, easy" tactics. If you really just can't handle it, don't play them. If it's a tournament, man up and beat them like a boss. I don't see why you make it a bigger deal than it really is.

Seriously, how is this thread still active? I realize I'm feeding the trolls here, but the whining here is ridiculous. Maybe you don't like playing against and ion cannons. Hitler didn't like Flying Fortress bombers...

Seriously though, this is a balanced game. Learn how to play against what gives you troubles in the game. Complaining,making excuses, and calling your opponents names will not improve your game.

The point is your entire argument is subjective perspective. The same advantage you claimed as proof for how the turret is easy mode can be delivered with fewer points using ties.

Ergo, you are wrong about the turret being easy mode.

First of all, 2 TIEs don't cost fewer than 23 points. Secondly, getting value out of TIEs is completely dependent on maneuvering properly. If you make an error with a TIE, you don't get to shoot with it. If you make an error with a turreted ship, you may still shoot regardless. Why you think that is an opinion eludes me.

Is it a subjective perspective that 360 degrees covers 4 times as much area as 90 degrees?

Ok, I was thinking grey not gold, so 23 to 24 points.

However other than that you keep shifting the goalpost. You said the y wing was easy mode because in the case of guessing where the enemy will go it can guess wrong and still have a shot. So I said 2 ties can guess both and still have a shot. Same effect, near identical points.

However if the y guesses too wrong the target could get to range three, and then only the tie would have a shot.

Your main assertion is turrets are more forgiving. My reply is, sometimes, but only sometimes and only situationally, just like everything else. The y pays through the nose got thst ion turret and I would expect to see two ties kill it dead, dead, dead.

Oh God here we go... A debate reaches 5 pages long and the only possible explanation is trolls are in charge. I really hate that word, because people bandy it about at the drop of a hat. People don't agree with me? Must be a troll!

A debate is not a bad thing. It's not troll food, it is a way for people of varying opinions to bring forth their ideas so that our understanding of the game can evolve. Throwing that word out there diminishes the value of any points of view.

Do you not see the irony of saying this:

calling your opponents names will not improve your game.

...and calling people names in the same post?

If you don't like the conversation, please don't visit. There's no need to go out of your way to try to ruin it.

Maneuvering is not they entirety of what the game is about, but attempting to make it irrelevant is pretty unsporting.

How, how is it unsporting to utilize models in a way in which the game designers allow players to do so? Where does that argument even come from when the game design permits their use?

You attempting to dictate what your opponent plays, while they play completely within the rules and design of the game, is the only unsporting comment in this thread. Would it at all be sporting for your opponent to tell you you shouldn't be playing certain list combinations because they don't agree with them, despite them being completely legal builds? So why do you think you get to do just that?

You can't make the argument that it's overpowered, you can't even make the argument that it is even that effective at all. All you can attempt to argue is that it isn't fun to play against. You then have the arrogance to assume that because that is true for you, it must be true for everybody, it isn't. Your subjective opinion of what may be fun for you is absolutely no grounds to dictate how your opponent plays their squadron, within the boundaries of the game rules.

No, you clearly aren't trolling. You just think how you want to play applies to everybody and should supersede game design, that's some bigger issue then just trolling.

This is how I entered this thread:

Personally I think it's kinda tasteless to bring an all turret force.

Could it have been more clear that this is MY opinion? I don't think so. I'm sorry you disagree.

I think a turret (maybe 2) is a great equalizer against high mobility lists that would otherwise pick rebs apart, but going all in on them establishes that you are trying to win at the expense of your opponent's enjoyment. The community suffers when that becomes a list-building strategy.

I don't understand why you look at an all turret list and see somebody as unsporting or that they are intentionally trying to kill your enjoyment of the game.

The only thing I can think of is that you haven't figured out how to beat it yet or it directly counters what you would like to fly. Either way that's a you issue not them.

You either need to get better and figure out how to beat it or you need to use lists that aren't massively flawed where they are an auto loss to something that's not overly strong.

Try a more positive outlook and way to handle it. It will let you much happier in the long run.

So what would be your fix? You can't banned them, they are part of the game, and more importantly, of the Star Wars Universe. I would personally be very pissed if they would remove all ship with turrets, or allow them to just shoot in front of them just because some people hate them. Nevermind that most people love them. The turret option adds to the flavor and diversity of the game. From my point of view, it adds fun as there is another kind of build/ship I can face.

And we are talking about the Millenium Falcon here, that's the ship that got me interested in this game. The 360 turret is part of the ship. I even think they could have given it a second attack because it has 2 turrets, but they went with the gunner crew and I'm fine with it.

So what do you want? Clearly, after 5 pages, you should realise that you are a minority in thinking that there should be no turret in the game or that they ruined the fun. People seems to do fine with them. You wanted to voice your opinion and we heard you, you hate them. My opinion, I love them just like I love the front and back arc from the Slave 1. The Falcon is iconic, just going against it is fun. Not much to discuss here, neither you nor I will change their opinion.

You want a solution? If you hate them so much, you need to speak to your friend fielding only that about it. Let him know that you don't have fun going against an all turret build. If it's in casual games, he should accept that, unless the only way he have fun is if he play an all turret build, in that case, maybe someone needs to play another game. Or, better yet,if you don,t want to impose yourself, beat the **** out of him until he gets tired of losing when he field an all-turret build. They are not hard to beat and you said yourself that beating them is not the problem. So beat them hard. Your friend will eventually get tired of losing and will try something else.

I've been playing around with a squad, fine tuning it I guess you could say. I'm not the best Imperial player, as when I got into the game my friends were Imperial players so I went straight for learning the Rebellion. This is the newest variation of the squad I've been using to learn Imperials.

100 pts

Kath Scarlet+Expert Handling+Proximity Mines+Gunner (48)

Saber Squadron Pilot+Push the Limit (24)

Night Beast (15)

Obsidian Squadron Pilot (13)

It has the potential to dodge firing arcs with superior maneuvering but at the same time it also has the ability to turtle against turret ships. Kath can either take focus/evade for defence, the Saber can Focus and Evade with PtL, Night Beast can take a free Focus action after performing a green maneuver + his normal action. Alternatively, you can take out the Proximity Mines to upgrade the Obsidian Squadron Pilot to Dark Curse for some extra Defensive power.

There is still a decent about of firepower as well, with 3 natural red dice and Gunner on Kath, ensuring if you don't hit the first time there is always a second attack handy. Also, 3 natural red dice on the Saber and multiple ships that will have tokens for modifying results.

I'm a turret lover. My family has shunned me for it, and I know Congress says it isn't right, but I was born this way.

A little math:

1 Y wing + Blaster turret = 22 pts.

If we use range = 1 inch (for simplicity's sake) the Y wing can cover 12.65 sq inches, without a focus.

2 Academy Pilots = 24 pts

Each one covers 7.065 sq inches, and has a Focus to spend.

While the Y may cover more ground, on it's own, it's limited in its range (obviously) and accuracy. The two TIES cover more ground, and can deliver more accuracy for roughly the same price.

Now, Xwing is a Rock,Paper, Scissors game to some extent. Some ships are just going to do better against others. I have a friend who loves to play TIEs + BHs. This has forced me away from ships I tend to love the most (A wings), to something that delivers a bit more of a punch ( Bwings) and has been great for me, because it's opened me up to some other ways to approach the game.

And remember, there are 1,000 lessons in defeat, and only 1 in victory. Learn from your losses, and challenge yourself to grow. Turrets aren't leaving the game, so either you are, or you'll learn to adapt.

PS - I actually apologized to an opp at my last tournament because I was flying a Y wing with an Ion turret and she had B wings, and I knew she wasn't going to enjoy the match. It's the price you pay for flying certain ships, as that same Y wing got eaten alive by Interceptors in the following match,

This is how I entered this thread:

Personally I think it's kinda tasteless to bring an all turret force.

Could it have been more clear that this is MY opinion? I don't think so. I'm sorry you disagree.

There is a weird amount of backlash to this post. This is a game of movement. In order to do anything else, you must first move your ships properly. If you land on an asteroid, you can't do anything. If you land off the board, you die. If you land with your arc facing the wrong way, you can't shoot. Movement is what seperates this game from Yahtzee.

360 degree firing arcs make the game easier to play - there is really no arguing agianst that. People can try to counter by pointing out that turrets might cost more, but that doesn't really make a difference when it comes down to actually playing (if anything, only as to who wins or loses, but there are more important considerations when spending one's limited free time than who wins or loses). The end result is that one player is coasting through the game while the other is forced to take risks in order to potentially come out on top. People don't like sitting there and agonizing over their movement dial while their opponent just twists to a 1-straight or a 1-turn and knows that at least they get to shoot back regardless of what happens. If the turrent ship goes right, the non-turret ship has no shot. If the turret ship goes left, the non-turrent ship has the shot. Either way, the turret ship has a shot. Those situations happen regularly and mean that one player has to think and take risks while the other doesn't. People don't like that - which is perfectly reasonable.

So, what, exactly, is the problem with someone raising issues about game mechanics that they find questionable?

There is a weird amount of backlash to this post. This is a game of movement. In order to do anything else, you must first move your ships properly. If you land on an asteroid, you can't do anything. If you land off the board, you die. If you land with your arc facing the wrong way, you can't shoot. Movement is what seperates this game from Yahtzee.

360 degree firing arcs make the game easier to play - there is really no arguing agianst that. People can try to counter by pointing out that turrets might cost more, but that doesn't really make a difference when it comes down to actually playing (if anything, only as to who wins or loses, but there are more important considerations when spending one's limited free time than who wins or loses). The end result is that one player is coasting through the game while the other is forced to take risks in order to potentially come out on top. People don't like sitting there and agonizing over their movement dial while their opponent just twists to a 1-straight or a 1-turn and carries on as normal. If the turrent ship goes right, the non-turret ship has no shot. If the turret ship goes left, the non-turrent ship has the shot. Either way, the turret ship has a shot. Those situations happen regularly and mean that one player has to think and take risks while the other doesn't. People don't like that - which is perfectly reasonable.

So, what, exactly, is the problem with someone raising issues about arguably questionable game mechanics?

Different doesn't mean easier. Fly a few Turret ships. Tell me how much easier you find them? Because frankly they have issues.

I don't think people think they're overpowered. They're balanced pretty well. They're just not fun when every ship is flying them or there's a 60 pt Falcon flying around.

YES this was kinda my point. Not that it was an impossibe list to play against, but the that fun factor died. There have been good suggestions in this thread about how best to fly against turrets, but thus far no good suggestions about how to make playing against an all-turret list any FUN.. ;-)

What makes them not fun? Is avoiding arcs the only fun part of the game? Because frankly I just enjoy playing. Against Turrets or not. It's a fun game. Fair competition, a mental challenge, good placement for range 1 shots, succesfully running my opponent onto an Asteroid or blocking them at just the right time. All of that is fun whether they have a turret or not.

Thats a good question - assuming you are not being rhetorical? I think it was a mixture of dissapointment followed by a feeling that something was missing?

I haven't been playing long, but always play imperial (not much choice really, I use the hand-me-downs from my buddy who always plays rebel and loans me all his imperial gear. I think he only bought the imperial stuff to get the upgrade cards).

I had been encouraged to fly the dark lord himself. I was told "I know he is only 2 dice attack but hes fun to flap around the board like a bat in scooby doo." So initially there was dissapointment - knowing there was not going to be any opportunity to "get behind" my opponent.

Then generally something felt missing from the game. It wasnt fun. I dunno, maybe I was on my man-period. The game felt flat.

Anyhoot, I have not played any turret ships myself. I have played lists that are high in Tie Fighters, Interceptors, or used firesprays. Even using Lambda I find a big part of the game experience is spinning the movement dial over and over wishing the move you needed was on there! For me, the game is trying to guess where the opponent will be, and trying to move in a way that you dont hit too much stuff. You know? The bit where you look at the table and think to yourself "assuming he moves to that spot, If I get into that spot there I might just scrape into range 1 on him and only have one of his fighters able to hit me - split his attacks and get a close in shot - seems worth it". THAT was missing. So because my 4-turrent opponent was not trying to outmanouver ME, I didnt feel like I had any kind of "movement battle".

It kinda reminds me of watching a game when two people just went joust-koigren-joust-koigren repeat until someone won. It was dull to watch. Where is the fun in that? Those two guys should have just put their lists into a computer program which spits out the winner.

Some people like snakes and ladders. You know? The game where you don't make any decisions and just roll and roll to see who ends up at the top first.. Not me.

I don't think people think they're overpowered. They're balanced pretty well. They're just not fun when every ship is flying them or there's a 60 pt Falcon flying around.

YES this was kinda my point. Not that it was an impossibe list to play against, but the that fun factor died. There have been good suggestions in this thread about how best to fly against turrets, but thus far no good suggestions about how to make playing against an all-turret list any FUN.. ;-)

What makes them not fun? Is avoiding arcs the only fun part of the game? Because frankly I just enjoy playing. Against Turrets or not. It's a fun game. Fair competition, a mental challenge, good placement for range 1 shots, succesfully running my opponent onto an Asteroid or blocking them at just the right time. All of that is fun whether they have a turret or not.

Thats a good question - assuming you are not being rhetorical? I think it was a mixture of dissapointment followed by a feeling that something was missing?

I haven't been playing long, but always play imperial (not much choice really, I use the hand-me-downs from my buddy who always plays rebel and loans me all his imperial gear. I think he only bought the imperial stuff to get the upgrade cards).

I had been encouraged to fly the dark lord himself. I was told "I know he is only 2 dice attack but hes fun to flap around the board like a bat in scooby doo." So initially there was dissapointment - knowing there was not going to be any opportunity to "get behind" my opponent.

Then generally something felt missing from the game. It wasnt fun. I dunno, maybe I was on my man-period. The game felt flat.

Anyhoot, I have not played any turret ships myself. I have played lists that are high in Tie Fighters, Interceptors, or used firesprays. Even using Lambda I find a big part of the game experience is spinning the movement dial over and over wishing the move you needed was on there! For me, the game is trying to guess where the opponent will be, and trying to move in a way that you dont hit too much stuff. You know? The bit where you look at the table and think to yourself "assuming he moves to that spot, If I get into that spot there I might just scrape into range 1 on him and only have one of his fighters able to hit me - split his attacks and get a close in shot - seems worth it". THAT was missing. So because my 4-turrent opponent was not trying to outmanouver ME, I didnt feel like I had any kind of "movement battle".

It kinda reminds me of watching a game when two people just went joust-koigren-joust-koigren repeat until someone won. It was dull to watch. Where is the fun in that? Those two guys should have just put their lists into a computer program which spits out the winner.

Some people like snakes and ladders. You know? The game where you don't make any decisions and just roll and roll to see who ends up at the top first.. Not me.

I think you might enjoy Outmaneuver when that Upgrade is released. Extra firepower for being outside of your opponent's arcs.

More punishment for your opponent not caring where he moved his ships.

I don't think people think they're overpowered. They're balanced pretty well. They're just not fun when every ship is flying them or there's a 60 pt Falcon flying around.

YES this was kinda my point. Not that it was an impossibe list to play against, but the that fun factor died. There have been good suggestions in this thread about how best to fly against turrets, but thus far no good suggestions about how to make playing against an all-turret list any FUN.. ;-)

What makes them not fun? Is avoiding arcs the only fun part of the game? Because frankly I just enjoy playing. Against Turrets or not. It's a fun game. Fair competition, a mental challenge, good placement for range 1 shots, succesfully running my opponent onto an Asteroid or blocking them at just the right time. All of that is fun whether they have a turret or not.

Thats a good question - assuming you are not being rhetorical? I think it was a mixture of dissapointment followed by a feeling that something was missing?

I haven't been playing long, but always play imperial (not much choice really, I use the hand-me-downs from my buddy who always plays rebel and loans me all his imperial gear. I think he only bought the imperial stuff to get the upgrade cards).

I had been encouraged to fly the dark lord himself. I was told "I know he is only 2 dice attack but hes fun to flap around the board like a bat in scooby doo." So initially there was dissapointment - knowing there was not going to be any opportunity to "get behind" my opponent.

Then generally something felt missing from the game. It wasnt fun. I dunno, maybe I was on my man-period. The game felt flat.

Anyhoot, I have not played any turret ships myself. I have played lists that are high in Tie Fighters, Interceptors, or used firesprays. Even using Lambda I find a big part of the game experience is spinning the movement dial over and over wishing the move you needed was on there! For me, the game is trying to guess where the opponent will be, and trying to move in a way that you dont hit too much stuff. You know? The bit where you look at the table and think to yourself "assuming he moves to that spot, If I get into that spot there I might just scrape into range 1 on him and only have one of his fighters able to hit me - split his attacks and get a close in shot - seems worth it". THAT was missing. So because my 4-turrent opponent was not trying to outmanouver ME, I didnt feel like I had any kind of "movement battle".

It kinda reminds me of watching a game when two people just went joust-koigren-joust-koigren repeat until someone won. It was dull to watch. Where is the fun in that? Those two guys should have just put their lists into a computer program which spits out the winner.

Some people like snakes and ladders. You know? The game where you don't make any decisions and just roll and roll to see who ends up at the top first.. Not me.

Hooperjaws:

I hear what you are saying, but the issue is truly that you are still new enough to the game that you don't see beyond getting a single shot off. If your entire goal is to aim your ship at the badguys this turn, with little/no thought about following turns, then yes turrets would seem to be easy mode.

For example, Sekac has talked about what happens if you have your TIE fighter against a Y-Wing with Ion. If you guess right, and he goes right, you get a good shot at him and he shoots at you. If you guess left, and he goes right, he gets to shoot at you but you don't get to shoot. Seems like the Y-Wing is in easy mode. Except...

- If you went to the right and so did he, you are going to get a single close range shot off. He is going to Ion you. He takes 2 or 3 damage, you take 1 and are Ionized. Next turn, you drift forwards and he turns out of your arc and hits you again. The turn after, you drift forward one more time and he kills you with a third shot.

- If you went left and he went right, you cannot shoot and he hits you for one and Ionizes you. Next turn, you drift forwards and regardless of what he does he will be out of range with his Ion. Over the next few turns, you get turned around and so does he. When you pass again, you get at least two shots (with actions), one of which is likely out of range of his turret.

The bottom line is that the "easy mode" Y-Wing getting a single shot off did not do himself any favors. If you take the comparison out to the appropriate points (2 TIEs vs. 1 Y-Wing), which is the only way to make this a real apples to apples comparison, then you can split your TIEs and make it so that his "easy mode" Y-Wing needs to get very creative if he wants to survive. If he just turns to one side and Ionizes away your other TIE will KILL HIM before he finishes the first TIE and gets guns on you. If the Y-Wing player is going to win against 2 TIEs he needs to play at least 2 turns out, Ionizing you in a way to maximize his defense and force you to wind up at close range for a primary kill shot while predicting the movements of both of your TIEs.

If you cannot see past the current turn, and the be all end all of your planning phase is shooting some guns right now, then yes turrets will be frustrating. But good turret play requires a great deal of planning, whether you are using them or facing them, and THAT is interesting. Positioning is even more important vs. turrets than it is against fixed arcs because the points and capability disparity is so great. I can use Interceptors to great effect against other snub fighters by the simple expedient of guessing where they are going this turn, picking a maneuver that doesn't crash into them, and then barrel-rolling or boosting out of their arcs. If I am facing a YT-1300 with Interceptors, I need to avoid Range 1, put as many arcs on him as possible, use my injured Interceptor to cause him to bump (and keep him from shooting that Interceptor), rocket out of range when my shots are denied, and continuously cycle the ships engaging the YT-1300 in order to spread the damage around. THAT is interesting, THAT is challenging, avoiding the front end of an X-Wing pales by comparison.

When using the YT-1300 I have to work to focus on a single ship turn after turn, while avoiding bumping things with my giant base, simultaneously avoiding the firing arcs of every ship he has. I have much less agility, fewer guns, and a wider footprint. Overcoming that enormous disparity against a top-level player requires great flying, not just drifting forwards.

I will grant that using turrets makes beating a poor player easy, and a contest between two poor players one using turrets and one using snub fighters will go to the turret player 9/10 times. But then, you already knew that.

Because that's wrong. Turrets sacrifice firepower, points, and defense. They aren't coasting through the game. They have to position just as carefull as any other pilot, because most Turret ships go down to focus fire fast. They are all low agility, high hull ships. The cheaper options suffer against action denial, have trouble modding dice, and do paltry damage. Other ships can coast through the game taking range one shots with 4 dice, a focus and a target lock hitting for 3-4 hits per attack. A Y-wing is lucky to do 2 damage with a turret. A Hawk with a Blaster Turret and the mods it needs to make that work spends 7-10 points on cardboard on a fragile ship. The falcon costs half your fleet. None of that is coasting. It's creating pressure to keep out of opponents arcs and avoid as much fire as possible because they take longer to kill anything than any other ship in their cost range. A Y-wing will take 4-5 turns to kill a Tie fighter while costing nearly as much as 2. Let alone how long it takes to kill a B-wing. It's a useful ship, but far from some kind of easy mode game. Different yes. Easy, no. The Falcon is the best of the Turret ships, but it has trouble keeping up the Firepower needed to justify costing 40-50 points.

Different doesn't mean easier. Fly a few Turret ships. Tell me how much easier you find them? Because frankly they have issues.

Your aren't responding to what I said.

A ship with a turrent does not have to sacrifice anything - you just made that up and presented it as an absolute. Nothing prevents a ship with a turrent from having the dial of an interceptor with 4 green dice and you know that. The issue is the game mechanic and the frustration that it creates, not any specific ship.

Turrets ships go down to focus fire fast? So does any other ship. Not that that point has anything to do with what I said - which is that 360 degree firing arcs significantly negate part of the challenge of movement that is inherent in this game.

A ship with a turret has very few concerns when manuvering to get a shot. Their only concern with regard to firing is being out of range - and in that case, keep in mind that the enemy ship can never fire back, so it is a wash. How is that not coasting? That takes one of the game's key aspects (manuvering in order to fire) out of the equation. Again, whether it costs more or not is irrelevant - that difficulty is now nonexistent. Difficulties disappearing makes things easier - do you disagree? As I said and you clearly ignored, whether or not the 360 degree firing mechanic is more expensive than a direction firing arc, it is unarguably easier to use than a directional firing arc (which is further support by the fact that you had to resort to arguing point cost not to mention the fact that better things cost more).

You resort to pointing out the deficiencies of certain ships, but that is not what this thread is about. this thread is about the 360 degree firing arc as a game mechanic.

Please don't tell me to fly a few ships with turrets. You can assume that I have otherwise I would not be talking about them in the way that I am. Why don't you go fly some ships without turrents. Do you see how ignorant and obnoxious the preceeding sentence makes me sound?

You should notice that I didn't say that I think ion turrets are overpowerd. I did not say that the YT-1300 is too inexpensive. I did not say that blaster turrets are too effective. I said that I understand why people find 360 degree firing arc disenheartening in a game where movement and direction are the core challenges and everything else comes down to dice.

Could it have been more clear that this is MY opinion? I don't think so. I'm sorry you disagree.

A ship with a turrent does not have to sacrifice anything - you just made that up and presented it as an absolute.

Yes it does, and it is an absolute as of wave 4. Sure FFG might put something out like a Agl 3 ship with 5 hull, 3 shields and a dial like a A-Wing... But that also seems pretty unlikely... And even then putting a Ion or blaster turret on that ship would seem rather pointless.

But until such a ship is released, the fact that it might happen doesn't this is a meaningless statement, because we can only deal with what is, not what might or might never be.

A ship with a turret has very few concerns when manuvering to get a shot.

That is simply untrue, unless the only thing you worry about is getting off a shot, which will quite often end up costing you the game.

Yeah, Ion swarms start to have issues when outnumbered.

I think it is also important to distinguish the two types of turrets, as there are different issues with both. The turret primary weapon, as seen on the Falcon, doesn't give up anything to use it. That is a much, much different issue than what was being primarily talked about here. There are absolutely costs involved when you use the Turret Upgrades. Some very hefty ones. With the Ion Turret, you are pretty much limiting your firepower, though you do gain some positioning control. Blaster Turrets, while cheaper and have more damage potential, has some serious issues you have to build for. And 3 attack dice are good, but do not hit all the time.