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.

In addition you're playing a hypothetical game here by saying my limitations on turret ships don't exist. We have 3 ships with Turrets right now, and no new ones coming for quite some time outside of Epic Play. All of them(including the Corvette) are doing significantly less damage than any non-turreted ship for their points, either by costing a lot of points or being restricted to inferior (damagewise) weaponry. And none of them are incredibly durable for their cost. For the cost of Han Solo I can get 2 B-wings with more health, more firepower, and the same agility. Without a 360 arc he'd be awful. So in that sense I am right. All of the turreted ships we have now are low agility, low damage/point ships.

Even a squad of 5 Rebel operatives with Blaster Turrets isn't a capable list due to the fact they will never realistically modify their attacks, and a single asteroid run in costs them their attack, and that's as many Turret ships as a list can be. 4 hawks/Y-wings isn't a competent list either. A Falcon with two support turret ships might be, but I have a hunch it will have difficulty killing most lists due to, again Low Damage potential.

I think it is also important to distinguish the two types of turrets, as there are different issues with both.

Yes 360 degree fire is potent but it also is costly. It's not like FFG designs thing in a vacuum, if anything the stuff coming out since Imp Aces shows they're trying to shift things around without taking a hammer to everything.

You can't look at 360 fire by itself, because no system works in a vacuum in this game, FFG knows how powerful it is, and as such limits what gets it.

Ion Turrets are good, but they're also costly nearly half the cost of a single Tie. They also give up a lot of damage for their control. Blaster Turrets are IMO an even worse choice.

The YT is a good ship but it too gives up things for that 360 fire. For one it's on a large base making it even easier to shoot, and with 1 defense it is easy to hit. Plus that you're paying 27 points for a ORS, which only has 2 more HP's then a Y-Wing.

We're talking about a ship that should quite likely be killed by a single round of focused fire by a Howlrunner swarm, and has little chance of killing even 1 tie in return.

Let's make this simple, shall we.

Store Championship results contain the following statistics

Of 152 recorded championships, 82 of the winning squads were Rebels.

Of all the points spent amongst all winners, fewer than 15% were spent on turrets.

Just barely more than 26% of points spent by the Rebel players, were spent on turret ships (Hwk, Y, YT)

Assuming that every player spent 100pts on their list, of the more than 15,000pts spent on lists, fewer than 2200pts represented turret ships.

The YT comprised roughly 10% of the total points spent, the Y wing 4%, and the Hwk fewer than 2%.

Of named pilots on turret-capable ships, Chewbacca, Han, Lando, Dutch, Horton, Roark, Kyle, and Jan make up less than 13% OF ALL NAMED PILOTS!

The YT focused lists make up 9% of the lists that won, dual YTs accounting for roughly 6%

If turrets are so gosh-darn game breaking, why aren't we seeing more of them win?

Of winning lists, TIE swarms make up 17%, 4 X/B lists make up 15%. There are obviously pilots out there who fly turrets well, and there are pilots out there who seem to have no trouble putting them in the scrap heap. Turrets are obviously not an 'easy win' button, or they would make up a far larger slice of the pie, especially considering the overall iconic love for and popularity of the Falcon.

I think a turret (maybe 2) is a great equalizer against high mobility lists that would otherwise pick rebs apart

Turrets are definitely counters to mobility and I usually include 1 (maybe 2 in a competitive list) to level the playing field a bit. .

I'm not saying they are OP or broken.

Just in case anyone is wondering, I exclusively play rebels, so this isn't founded in some bad experience or sour grapes that there exists a counter to hyper-mobility.

And yet:

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.

After (now) 6 pages, all I've realized is that people are either skimming posts or thinking, "6 Pages?! I'm not reading all that! I'll go with my hunch instead."

The problem I have with turrets is how they are such a hard counter to interceptor heavy lists. One Falcon can be frustrating. Two Falcons can be soul-crushing.

I do like the turret upgrades but I don't like how it is possible to have two Falcons in one list. It's one thing to have a bad match-up and another to be extremely hard countered by a popular and competitive build (Falcon + two ships, or Falcon x2). Interceptors against most builds are expensive, yet fun ships with lots of options. However, interceptors against a Falcon or 2 Falcons then become liabilities. This was worsened when imperial aces came out and did little to nothing to mitigate this problem. This was exacerbated when they spoiled Rebel aces specifically dealing with the A-wing's biggest problems while the interceptors got interesting toys at best.

If FFG had printed all the YT-1300s with the ORS baseline stats but the title granted it the Millennium Falcon stats usable only on the named pilots it would have made more sense lore-wise and would have prevented the extreme hard counter that ships like the interceptor face. But it would have been much less elegant to grant the ship stats through a title card which is why I think they printed the Falcons the way they did.

I love this game and I do believe turrets make the game more interesting in several ways, but I do understand where the OP is coming from. Of course, there are ways to deal with turret heavy lists but to me the biggest problem with turrets is allowing two Falcon builds to be both so competitive and so forgiving, which makes it a moderately popular thing to face in tournaments. This then narrows imperial lists to make lists that has any chance against something like that, which is why I believe imperials are often times pigeon-holed into lists like tie swarms and keeps many players from playing ships like interceptors.

I'm not saying interceptors are not competitive or not viable, but the fact that doing well with an interceptor list depends heavily on whether the player faces any double falcon lists is really sad (basically auto-lose in my opinion). Another way to put it, I believe so much more points go into making a ship like the interceptor so maneuverable, than making a ship like the falcon ignore that maneuverability. Due to this factor, it seems like it is too much of an uphill battle for the former.

I like that all lists have difficult match-ups and good match-ups. It's interesting for the meta, and encourages robustness in people's lists which I find to be probably the most fascinating part of squad building. However, I don't like that so many lists that would otherwise be very fun and balanced to play is effectively strangled out by such a popular and competitive hard counter that it negates so many of one of the player's points in their squad that they've invested on something like maneuverability.

Don't even get me started on the Tie-Advanced, which is Probably my favorite ship, but also likely the least competitive and most overpriced ship in the game...

TLDR: I think turrets are interesting and in general good for the game, but don't like how double falcon lists are a thing, because as competitive and popular as they are, I believe they are stagnating competitive squad building for imperials. In other words, I think interceptors pay disproportionately more points for their maneuverability, than named YT-1300s pay for their ability to ignore their maneuverability.

I have literally gone entire games moving exclusively with green maneuvers on a Y-Wing and had it do its job every turn. Can you move only 1 or 2 forward with ANY other ship and claim the same? No.

If you don't think they're easier to play with, you're fooling yourself.

That just sounds like your opponent didn't know how to play against it.

That's absolutely true but also misses the point. I'm not saying they can't be out-played (in fact I earlier offered advice on how to do just that). My point is nothing else can SUCCEED by flying in a straight line.

It is the lowest common denominator, tactically speaking.

Ive only been playing a couple of months but I am already addicted, and yesterday I decided to stop playing low-ps multiple ships lists and branch out with some more "trick" pilots. So after watching episode IV (1977 version - yeah Im oldskool) earlier in the week, I'm up for having fun with Vader and two ties. Did my research and discover that the two ties are Backstabber and Mauler. So that's one crew sorted. Then I spend all the remaining points on carnor jax all souped up.

So I bring the gear along yesterday evening to have a game with a guy I don't know too well. And well assuming you read the title of this thread you can guess what happened.

All the fun I thought I was gonna have with Vader and Carnor dodging around (plus barrel-rolls with the ties) didn't happen. No dogfighting really, just being shot at with 360 degree turrents.

I thought this was a dogfighting game? He had loads of Ywings and a Mouldy Crow, ALL with turrets.

I wasn't expecting my list to be particularly competitive. I was going for a "cinematic" experience chiefly. But I DID expect to be dogfighting and having fun. :-(

It really took the shine off of the game.

Am I alone?

Depending how many interceptors or fighters you have normally I would say you MUST save your focus for defensive actions. No matter how much you want to change all your dice into hits remember one thing. They can kill you in one attack and can not kill them in one attack unless you got a prototype interceptor or the enemy is allready hacked up.

Ships can avoid their range, asteroids can be in the way, and the edge of the map shows up awful fast. Even the almighty Falcon can't just fly up and down the edge of the map and win.

Have you ever seen how much area a YT covers when parked smack in the centre of the table?

(not taking sides or anything but I seriously think you are underestimating the YT here.)

The problem I have with turrets is how they are such a hard counter to interceptor heavy lists. One Falcon can be frustrating. Two Falcons can be soul-crushing.

I do like the turret upgrades but I don't like how it is possible to have two Falcons in one list. It's one thing to have a bad match-up and another to be extremely hard countered by a popular and competitive build (Falcon + two ships, or Falcon x2). Interceptors against most builds are expensive, yet fun ships with lots of options. However, interceptors against a Falcon or 2 Falcons then become liabilities. This was worsened when imperial aces came out and did little to nothing to mitigate this problem. This was exacerbated when they spoiled Rebel aces specifically dealing with the A-wing's biggest problems while the interceptors got interesting toys at best.

If FFG had printed all the YT-1300s with the ORS baseline stats but the title granted it the Millennium Falcon stats usable only on the named pilots it would have made more sense lore-wise and would have prevented the extreme hard counter that ships like the interceptor face. But it would have been much less elegant to grant the ship stats through a title card which is why I think they printed the Falcons the way they did.

I love this game and I do believe turrets make the game more interesting in several ways, but I do understand where the OP is coming from. Of course, there are ways to deal with turret heavy lists but to me the biggest problem with turrets is allowing two Falcon builds to be both so competitive and so forgiving, which makes it a moderately popular thing to face in tournaments. This then narrows imperial lists to make lists that has any chance against something like that, which is why I believe imperials are often times pigeon-holed into lists like tie swarms and keeps many players from playing ships like interceptors.

I'm not saying interceptors are not competitive or not viable, but the fact that doing well with an interceptor list depends heavily on whether the player faces any double falcon lists is really sad (basically auto-lose in my opinion). Another way to put it, I believe so much more points go into making a ship like the interceptor so maneuverable, than making a ship like the falcon ignore that maneuverability. Due to this factor, it seems like it is too much of an uphill battle for the former.

I like that all lists have difficult match-ups and good match-ups. It's interesting for the meta, and encourages robustness in people's lists which I find to be probably the most fascinating part of squad building. However, I don't like that so many lists that would otherwise be very fun and balanced to play is effectively strangled out by such a popular and competitive hard counter that it negates so many of one of the player's points in their squad that they've invested on something like maneuverability.

Don't even get me started on the Tie-Advanced, which is Probably my favorite ship, but also likely the least competitive and most overpriced ship in the game...

TLDR: I think turrets are interesting and in general good for the game, but don't like how double falcon lists are a thing, because as competitive and popular as they are, I believe they are stagnating competitive squad building for imperials. In other words, I think interceptors pay disproportionately more points for their maneuverability, than named YT-1300s pay for their ability to ignore their maneuverability.

If I was flying an Int heavy list, I would be licking my chops when I saw double Falcons. A low agi ship, that's easy to keep in my firing arc, yes please! Honestly, the harder part is dealing with a card like Gunner

Ships can avoid their range, asteroids can be in the way, and the edge of the map shows up awful fast. Even the almighty Falcon can't just fly up and down the edge of the map and win.

Have you ever seen how much area a YT covers when parked smack in the centre of the table?

(not taking sides or anything but I seriously think you are underestimating the YT here.)

The Falcon pays a ton for limited Damage. It needs a 360 degree arc to be viable for the cost. It's annoying and makes Interceptors way too easy to kill, but it isn't broken or unavoidable. I was purely refencing the silly idea Turret ships can fly in straight lines and succeed.

I gotta feel for you sekac, its rough when people get misquoted.

You typed "I've got no problem with turrets as a concept.. ..If I resented them, I wouldn't use them" - and someone replies to tell us that you think "that there should be no turret in the game"! You have also been accused of trolling. Most readers would see that you are not trolling though. :-)

I started this thread complaining that an all turrent list wasn't much fun to play against, due to lack of maneuvering in the game and lots of replies have been as if I had asked for advice for winning. I had kinda expected to hear "yeah, they are a bit cheezy arent they?". That said, some good tips have come forward, so thanks to everyone for your inputs, even those who were "misreading" :-D

The problem I have with turrets is how they are such a hard counter to interceptor heavy lists. One Falcon can be frustrating. Two Falcons can be soul-crushing.

I do like the turret upgrades but I don't like how it is possible to have two Falcons in one list. It's one thing to have a bad match-up and another to be extremely hard countered by a popular and competitive build (Falcon + two ships, or Falcon x2). Interceptors against most builds are expensive, yet fun ships with lots of options. However, interceptors against a Falcon or 2 Falcons then become liabilities. This was worsened when imperial aces came out and did little to nothing to mitigate this problem. This was exacerbated when they spoiled Rebel aces specifically dealing with the A-wing's biggest problems while the interceptors got interesting toys at best.

If FFG had printed all the YT-1300s with the ORS baseline stats but the title granted it the Millennium Falcon stats usable only on the named pilots it would have made more sense lore-wise and would have prevented the extreme hard counter that ships like the interceptor face. But it would have been much less elegant to grant the ship stats through a title card which is why I think they printed the Falcons the way they did.

I love this game and I do believe turrets make the game more interesting in several ways, but I do understand where the OP is coming from. Of course, there are ways to deal with turret heavy lists but to me the biggest problem with turrets is allowing two Falcon builds to be both so competitive and so forgiving, which makes it a moderately popular thing to face in tournaments. This then narrows imperial lists to make lists that has any chance against something like that, which is why I believe imperials are often times pigeon-holed into lists like tie swarms and keeps many players from playing ships like interceptors.

I'm not saying interceptors are not competitive or not viable, but the fact that doing well with an interceptor list depends heavily on whether the player faces any double falcon lists is really sad (basically auto-lose in my opinion). Another way to put it, I believe so much more points go into making a ship like the interceptor so maneuverable, than making a ship like the falcon ignore that maneuverability. Due to this factor, it seems like it is too much of an uphill battle for the former.

I like that all lists have difficult match-ups and good match-ups. It's interesting for the meta, and encourages robustness in people's lists which I find to be probably the most fascinating part of squad building. However, I don't like that so many lists that would otherwise be very fun and balanced to play is effectively strangled out by such a popular and competitive hard counter that it negates so many of one of the player's points in their squad that they've invested on something like maneuverability.

Don't even get me started on the Tie-Advanced, which is Probably my favorite ship, but also likely the least competitive and most overpriced ship in the game...

TLDR: I think turrets are interesting and in general good for the game, but don't like how double falcon lists are a thing, because as competitive and popular as they are, I believe they are stagnating competitive squad building for imperials. In other words, I think interceptors pay disproportionately more points for their maneuverability, than named YT-1300s pay for their ability to ignore their maneuverability.

If I was flying an Int heavy list, I would be licking my chops when I saw double Falcons. A low agi ship, that's easy to keep in my firing arc, yes please! Honestly, the harder part is dealing with a card like Gunner

I don't remember the last time I saw a Falcon without a gunner.

And if you didn't place Asteroid to mess with the Falcon that's your own fault. It shouldn't be able to straight shot across the center of the table and back ever.

It is my fault that you underestimate the range of a YT in the centre of the table?

Note that I have never complained about the YT.

The fact that Falcons beat Interceptors (supposedly) seems like a case of Rock, Paper, Scissors to me.

I've gotten slapped around by Falcons and I've done my fair share of slapping.

So even IF the Falcon is OP vs. Interceptors, the fact that ONE Imperial list can't beat all comers is a good thing. Otherwise, this game would get really boring really fast.

The fact that Falcons beat Interceptors (supposedly) seems like a case of Rock, Paper, Scissors to me.

I've gotten slapped around by Falcons and I've done my fair share of slapping.

So even IF the Falcon is OP vs. Interceptors, the fact that ONE Imperial list can't beat all comers is a good thing. Otherwise, this game would get really boring really fast.

Do you really think interceptors dominate against all other lists?

Also there's a difference between "can't beat all comers" and basically auto-losing against a popular and competitive build.

TLDR: I think turrets are interesting and in general good for the game, but don't like how double falcon lists are a thing, because as competitive and popular as they are, I believe they are stagnating competitive squad building for imperials. In other words, I think interceptors pay disproportionately more points for their maneuverability, than named YT-1300s pay for their ability to ignore their maneuverability.

This is interesting, I hadn't thought of this. You are saying that interceptors are expensive because they are great movers. (you certainly don't get much hull for your money.) - and due to falcons (and their 360degree arc) you are wasting a lot of your investment?

If that is the case, what you are saying is that falcons are cheap for what they can do, so people play them, and the knock-on effect on tournament play is that imperial players have limited choices when listbuilding?

The fact that Falcons beat Interceptors (supposedly) seems like a case of Rock, Paper, Scissors to me.

I've gotten slapped around by Falcons and I've done my fair share of slapping.

So even IF the Falcon is OP vs. Interceptors, the fact that ONE Imperial list can't beat all comers is a good thing. Otherwise, this game would get really boring really fast.

But I don't think the Falcon is OP, just that Interceptors should feel a hair safer than they do. This is a function of the Falcon, the enormous accuracy it can bring to a fight, the downsides of defense dice and defensive play in general, the efficiency of tie fighters(look at the differnces between a Squint and a Tie and tell me the Squint is that much better than the tie? And then look at the cost of high PS Ties vs High PS Interceptors), gunner, the cost of interceptors, and a host of other issues that conspire to leave Interceptors as a bad bet in tournaments. And I'm ok with that. They're still fun. Just not reliable for their points.

The fact that Falcons beat Interceptors (supposedly) seems like a case of Rock, Paper, Scissors to me.

I've gotten slapped around by Falcons and I've done my fair share of slapping.

So even IF the Falcon is OP vs. Interceptors, the fact that ONE Imperial list can't beat all comers is a good thing. Otherwise, this game would get really boring really fast.

While this is very true, Interceptors aren't nearly good enough to require a hard counter. They never feel safe.

But I don't think the Falcon is OP, just that Interceptors should feel a hair safer than they do. This is a function of the Falcon, the enormous accuracy it can bring to a fight, the downsides of defense dice and defensive play in general, the efficiency of tie fighters(look at the differnces between a Squint and a Tie and tell me the Squint is that much better than the tie? And then look at the cost of high PS Ties vs High PS Interceptors), gunner, the cost of interceptors, and a host of other issues that conspire to leave Interceptors as a bad bet in tournaments. And I'm ok with that. They're still fun. Just not reliable for their points.

Fair enough, and agreed. I don't believe the Falcon is OP. I just think it makes Imps life more difficult. No argument regarding cost of ties and squints.

There is really no doubt that Interceptors struggle at Tournaments, and that could probably be addressed, but the Falcon lists do not insta-win every tournament, which would lead me to believe they are not broken.

The fact that Falcons beat Interceptors (supposedly) seems like a case of Rock, Paper, Scissors to me.

I've gotten slapped around by Falcons and I've done my fair share of slapping.

So even IF the Falcon is OP vs. Interceptors, the fact that ONE Imperial list can't beat all comers is a good thing. Otherwise, this game would get really boring really fast.

Do you really think interceptors dominate against all other lists?

Also there's a difference between "can't beat all comers" and basically auto-losing against a popular and competitive build.

Nah, that was more of a generalized sentiment. I will admit that, much as I replied to the quote above, Interceptors seem to be stepchildren cost wise. Although well piloted, they are very deadly, but difficult to use competitively.

I just don't think the fact that the Falcon hard counters Interceptors is reason to rage quit on Turreted weapons.

I'm expecting to see more interceptors in play this summer. The Royal Guard is a steal for the points and a 6 PS to boot. Targeting Computer and Hull mods are cheap and fantastic for the Interceptor. Don't see the point of TC? Play a game with Soontir Fel w/ PtL and a Targeting Computer....

4 RG w/ PtL are just down right dangerous. Rolling anywhere from 12 to 16 dice in a round means easily dropping most ships in a single round of focusing fire. A YT only has one green die. It isn't going to be around too long with that kind of fire coming down on it either.

The thing with Interceptors is you often have to let the dice do the work and use tokens for defense. When you know you're in the clear and fire isn't coming back at you, that's when you let them have it! With the new rules on winning by points, this will play into the Interceptor's strengths. No need to press the action. Fly around, stay safe, and strike when the opportunity presents itself.

Up against Ys and YTs? Stay at range 3 and don't let two ships get a shot at the same Interceptor. 4 interceptors will wear down a YT, even one with a gunner.

Just a side note, and I realize this does not in ANY SHAPE FORM OR FASHION reflect overall game meta.

On the local level, the other night I saw this build demolish a *decently* played Falcon +2 list.

Lorrir + Stealth Device (26)

Carnor Jax + Stealth Device + PtL (32)

Krassis Trellix + Gunner (41)

Essentially, they just chased down the Falcon and mopped up the surviving two ships.

I've also seen this guy drop SD from Lorrir and run an Ion Cannon on Trellix, although in that match he was not playing against a Falcon list, but being able to Ion the two smaller ships if necessary also seems like a boon.

The reason I say **decently** played Falcon list is because I don't think the Falcon pilot did the best job of asteroid mitigation with his small ships, and the board was DEFINITELY set up in favor of smaller ships.

This is something people forget as well -

If you are letting the Falcon turn circles in the middle of the map, you need to seriously reevaluate your use of the Asteroid tokens during setup.

I'm expecting to see more interceptors in play this summer. The Royal Guard is a steal for the points and a 6 PS to boot. Targeting Computer and Hull mods are cheap and fantastic for the Interceptor. Don't see the point of TC? Play a game with Soontir Fel w/ PtL and a Targeting Computer....

4 RG w/ PtL are just down right dangerous. Rolling anywhere from 12 to 16 dice in a round means easily dropping most ships in a single round of focusing fire. A YT only has one green die. It isn't going to be around too long with that kind of fire coming down on it either.

The thing with Interceptors is you often have to let the dice do the work and use tokens for defense. When you know you're in the clear and fire isn't coming back at you, that's when you let them have it! With the new rules on winning by points, this will play into the Interceptor's strengths. No need to press the action. Fly around, stay safe, and strike when the opportunity presents itself.

Up against Ys and YTs? Stay at range 3 and don't let two ships get a shot at the same Interceptor. 4 interceptors will wear down a YT, even one with a gunner.

I agree I also love TC on Soontir. We can discuss optimal strategies for interceptors against YT-1300s all day long, but it won't change the fact that it is an extremely and unreasonably bad match-up (especially double Falcon lists).

Additionally, I don't think staying at range 3 against YT-1300s is the best strategy for interceptors. Realistically, you want to mitigate the effect of their gunners and maybe take 1 damage from each Falcon per turn and have all of your interceptors firing at range 2. If you're jousting against YT-1300s you don't want to make all of your attacks at +1 agi against the YTs for the benefit of having one or two attacks against your ships at +1 agi.

The fact that Falcons beat Interceptors (supposedly) seems like a case of Rock, Paper, Scissors to me.

I've gotten slapped around by Falcons and I've done my fair share of slapping.

So even IF the Falcon is OP vs. Interceptors, the fact that ONE Imperial list can't beat all comers is a good thing. Otherwise, this game would get really boring really fast.

While this is very true, Interceptors aren't nearly good enough to require a hard counter. They never feel safe.

But I don't think the Falcon is OP, just that Interceptors should feel a hair safer than they do. This is a function of the Falcon, the enormous accuracy it can bring to a fight, the downsides of defense dice and defensive play in general, the efficiency of tie fighters(look at the differnces between a Squint and a Tie and tell me the Squint is that much better than the tie? And then look at the cost of high PS Ties vs High PS Interceptors), gunner, the cost of interceptors, and a host of other issues that conspire to leave Interceptors as a bad bet in tournaments. And I'm ok with that. They're still fun. Just not reliable for their points.

Fair enough, and agreed. I don't believe the Falcon is OP. I just think it makes Imps life more difficult. No argument regarding cost of ties and squints.

There is really no doubt that Interceptors struggle at Tournaments, and that could probably be addressed, but the Falcon lists do not insta-win every tournament, which would lead me to believe they are not broken.

The fact that Falcons beat Interceptors (supposedly) seems like a case of Rock, Paper, Scissors to me.

I've gotten slapped around by Falcons and I've done my fair share of slapping.

So even IF the Falcon is OP vs. Interceptors, the fact that ONE Imperial list can't beat all comers is a good thing. Otherwise, this game would get really boring really fast.

Do you really think interceptors dominate against all other lists?

Also there's a difference between "can't beat all comers" and basically auto-losing against a popular and competitive build.

Nah, that was more of a generalized sentiment. I will admit that, much as I replied to the quote above, Interceptors seem to be stepchildren cost wise. Although well piloted, they are very deadly, but difficult to use competitively.

I just don't think the fact that the Falcon hard counters Interceptors is reason to rage quit on Turreted weapons.

Of note, I've been arguing this whole thread that Turrets don't ruin the game. I don't think they are OP in any way. The Falcon is the most powerful of the Turret Ships by far, and the sum total of it's effect on the metagame is neutering Interceptor viability(which makes B-wings amazing.)

Of note, I've been arguing this whole thread that Turrets don't ruin the game. I don't think they are OP in any way. The Falcon is the most powerful of the Turret Ships by far, and the sum total of it's effect on the metagame is neutering Interceptor viability(which makes B-wings amazing.)

Of note, I've been arguing this whole thread that Turrets don't ruin the game. I don't think they are OP in any way. The Falcon is the most powerful of the Turret Ships by far, and the sum total of it's effect on the metagame is neutering Interceptor viability(which makes B-wings amazing.)

And *that*, good sir, is the complaint of some. Not that all turrets are OP. Or even the YT is OP.

But what the YT does is effectively neutralise one possible build for one side.

Which leads to less diversity, which is bad.

Of note, I've been arguing this whole thread that Turrets don't ruin the game. I don't think they are OP in any way. The Falcon is the most powerful of the Turret Ships by far, and the sum total of it's effect on the metagame is neutering Interceptor viability(which makes B-wings amazing.)

And *that*, good sir, is the complaint of some. Not that all turrets are OP. Or even the YT is OP.

But what the YT does is effectively neutralise one possible build for one side.

Which leads to less diversity, which is bad.

If you can't appreciate how functionally balanced this game is you might want to look at the rest of the tabletop world. Because let me tell you. This game is amazingly balanced in comparison to every game I've played so far. It sucks for Interceptors, but even without YT's they are too many points for not a lot of durability. As I detailed earlier in fact. Even without YT's the game mechanics would leave Interceptors wanting an extra point of hull.

And for the longest time, TIE swarms ruled the meta and everyone had to build expecting to see one. I've played in four tournament now, and have yet to actually face a YT.