C3P0 is only good in a 3 ship lisy heavy metagame. 1 Damage a round, even 2 removed is meaningless in the face of 12 attack dice.

And an easier to shoot weapon does not make the game easier. That's what you're missing. The falcon needs just as much thinking and strategy as anything else in the game. It goes to different places, but it is not Easier to play. Just easier to shoot with. If you can't grasp the difference keep playing. You'll get there.

No, it is more effective the lower the attack per ship is. If you are throwing 12 dice but you are not saying "how you are throwing those dice", if it is 2 dice at a time, 3, etc. That´s what you are missing. I can't believe i need to explain this.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but you appear to be under the assumption that C-3PO can be used for each attack?

This is certainly not the case, you may use C-3PO only once per turn, regardless of how many ships are shooting at you, hence why C-3PO is better vs Smaller ship builds, not larger ones (like TIE Swarms)

C3P0 is only good in a 3 ship lisy heavy metagame. 1 Damage a round, even 2 removed is meaningless in the face of 12 attack dice.

And an easier to shoot weapon does not make the game easier. That's what you're missing. The falcon needs just as much thinking and strategy as anything else in the game. It goes to different places, but it is not Easier to play. Just easier to shoot with. If you can't grasp the difference keep playing. You'll get there.

No, it is more effective the lower the attack per ship is. If you are throwing 12 dice but you are not saying "how you are throwing those dice", if it is 2 dice at a time, 3, etc. That´s what you are missing. I can't believe i need to explain this.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but you appear to be under the assumption that C-3PO can be used for each attack?

This is certainly not the case, you may use C-3PO only once per turn, regardless of how many ships are shooting at you, hence why C-3PO is better vs Smaller ship builds, not larger ones (like TIE Swarms)

I used to think turrets (read "Falcons") were hard to beat. Then I faced a series of squads that had a named YT-1300 with two support ships without Gunner, and I realized that all this time it was really Gunner that was giving me fits. As Kinetic Operator pointed out, Gunner is a great way to make up for your lack of firepower by stripping your opponent's tokens. However, it's also a gamble in a meta where B-wings are running rampant, because that's practically 5 wasted points.

What I'm trying to say is that even though I fly TIE interceptors, I don't think turrets are too powerful.

I'll also say this, since I have your attention anyway. When you're facing a turreted ship with your squad of interceptors, those opening moves are critical. I don't know exactly what goes wrong, but sometimes I just feel when we first engage in combat that it's a losing battle. Gotta figure out how to make sure it goes my way, but that will take a lot of time and practice - more than I have. So I'll just do the best I can and go have some fun.

I have yet to see an actual "easy button" build. Everything takes work. Even a TIE swarm or HSF requires tactics to actual win. I have seen a 4 Y-wing build take apart every person he played in a group... except for one guy's daughter playing a TIE swarm for fun (her first time playing after watching her father play).

My point was not particularly considering whether 360 primaries make it easy or not, but that they make the game less fun, potentially for both players (which was one of the OP's cited criticisms of turrets that he wanted to discuss). when I'm contemplating strategies for dealing with it there's a lot less options available for my to use, it becomes solely about target priorities, cutting out a lot of the fun if the game that comes from trying to outflank your opponent. In contrast, turret upgrades keep the manoeuvre battle alive - indeed in changing it from an issue of range rather than out flanking they actually add something to the game for those willing to adapt their strategies. I'm not going to make a judgement on how easy it is as I don't own a falcon, and don't want to because of how I feel they make the game less fun.

Cheerio,

Ben

I've never been too bothered about turrets, but then they've never been a problem for the lists I've used at events.

I think a lot of the rage-at-turrets is because they do have a signficant effect on some lists.

If I played paper I'd feel that scissors was broken too.

A massively upgraded Chewbacca is nasty because you can't get out of arc, agility isn't much of a defence against gunner/predator and it's difficult to cut through that many tokens with a small number of attacks.

As a result, if your squad is small, agile, fragile and dependent on outmanouvring people - lets say a Royal Flush Gang of Jax and two Royal Guard Interceptors, you might well feel that that one ship is quite capable of dumping on your entire squad. You'd probably be justified in feeling that way, too. But you had access to ships that could have made a mess of it and chose not to take them.

I could say exactly the same thing about TIE Phantoms. If you have a lower pilot skill than an advanced cloaking device phantom squad, and don't have a significant numerical advantage, turrets, or, you know, something, then the resulting game feels like an arse-kicking contest with a porcupine. I've seen a game where the grand total that someone's managed to achieve is one shield off one of three phantoms in return for being tabled.

Are phantoms invincible? No. But there are lists which struggle massively against them - mostly the polar opposites of the ones who hate turrets; the inevitable 4 rebel ships with medium-low pilot skill, shields and heavy forward guns.

As to tactics for flying against turrets - they do still matter.

• You can't get out of arc. You can, however, still hide behind the bloody huge rock.
• Sabre-dancing in and out of range 3 is harder than it sounds but is possible, and allows you to avoid bolt-on turrets. Equally, being able to drop yourself in range 3 for the first exchange of fire with a bomber/Z-95/other ordnance-heavy list goes from being advantageous flying to potentially game-winning.
• You tend to have the firepower advantage if you can keep getting shots on it. Not much of a piloting challenge when facing an A-wing, but keeping the Falcon in your sights takes some work.
• You might not be able to avoid the Falcon's arc of fire, but you can evade the supporting 2-3 pilots he's brought as wingmen.
• Backstabber and Outmanouvre pilots still reward getting on the flank and rear of a turreted ship.

C3P0 is only good in a 3 ship lisy heavy metagame. 1 Damage a round, even 2 removed is meaningless in the face of 12 attack dice.

And an easier to shoot weapon does not make the game easier. That's what you're missing. The falcon needs just as much thinking and strategy as anything else in the game. It goes to different places, but it is not Easier to play. Just easier to shoot with. If you can't grasp the difference keep playing. You'll get there.

No, it is more effective the lower the attack per ship is. If you are throwing 12 dice but you are not saying "how you are throwing those dice", if it is 2 dice at a time, 3, etc. That´s what you are missing. I can't believe i need to explain this.

You are incorrect. C3P0 loses effectiveness with the number of attacks, not the size, which is why he said C3P0 is effective in a 3 ship meta game. Tokens also lose effectiveness based on the number of shots, not their size. This is why Super Chewie is still hard countered by Swarms despite his defensive advantages.

That's exactly what i meant. If you throw 2 dice at a time, it is less efficient than 3.

C3P0 is only good in a 3 ship lisy heavy metagame. 1 Damage a round, even 2 removed is meaningless in the face of 12 attack dice.

And an easier to shoot weapon does not make the game easier. That's what you're missing. The falcon needs just as much thinking and strategy as anything else in the game. It goes to different places, but it is not Easier to play. Just easier to shoot with. If you can't grasp the difference keep playing. You'll get there.

No, it is more effective the lower the attack per ship is. If you are throwing 12 dice but you are not saying "how you are throwing those dice", if it is 2 dice at a time, 3, etc. That´s what you are missing. I can't believe i need to explain this.

You are incorrect. C3P0 loses effectiveness with the number of attacks, not the size, which is why he said C3P0 is effective in a 3 ship meta game. Tokens also lose effectiveness based on the number of shots, not their size. This is why Super Chewie is still hard countered by Swarms despite his defensive advantages.

That's exactly what i meant. If you throw 2 dice at a time, it is less efficient than 3.

Everyone has their own idea of fun. Some people enjoy winning, so claiming that their enjoyment is subjective to your need to enjoy not playing against turrets is invalidated. Some people enjoy the tactical awareness of playing against something that can shoot them no matter where they are within range of a weapon. Just because you do not enjoy playing against turrets does not mean everyone doesn’t.

As I said, I typically have at least one turret in each of my lists. This is nowhere near “easy mode” as most turreted ships have poor agility, poor primary weapon damage, and poor movement. I can’t dogfight a Phantom or Interceptor in a Y-Wing, but they can maneuver in and out of my Ion Cannon Turret range very easily. I am not forcing them to only fly inside my fire arc while not targeting me.

It depends on how you play the game. If you don’t like facing turrets, then concede to your opponent at tournaments when you see they equip turrets. That way, you can continue to have fun without facing an opponent with turrets and your opponent can have fun without hearing how his turrets are not fun.

The alternative is to adapt and overcome. Learn some tactics to face turrets rather than complaining they don’t make it fun for you because they destroy you too quickly. If you don’t think that learning tactics during mock space combat is fun, then perhaps this is not the right game for you.

Everyone has their own idea of fun. Some people enjoy winning, so claiming that their enjoyment is subjective to your need to enjoy not playing against turrets is invalidated. Some people enjoy the tactical awareness of playing against something that can shoot them no matter where they are within range of a weapon. Just because you do not enjoy playing against turrets does not mean everyone doesn’t.

As I said, I typically have at least one turret in each of my lists. This is nowhere near “easy mode” as most turreted ships have poor agility, poor primary weapon damage, and poor movement. I can’t dogfight a Phantom or Interceptor in a Y-Wing, but they can maneuver in and out of my Ion Cannon Turret range very easily. I am not forcing them to only fly inside my fire arc while not targeting me.

It depends on how you play the game. If you don’t like facing turrets, then concede to your opponent at tournaments when you see they equip turrets. That way, you can continue to have fun without facing an opponent with turrets and your opponent can have fun without hearing how his turrets are not fun.

The alternative is to adapt and overcome. Learn some tactics to face turrets rather than complaining they don’t make it fun for you because they destroy you too quickly. If you don’t think that learning tactics during mock space combat is fun, then perhaps this is not the right game for you.

For the love of games, don't be the guy that concedes before the game is truly lost. There is nothing quite so fun ruining as a rage quitter. I'd take cheaters over rage quitters. I'd take smug rules lawyering racists over rage quitters. You're there to play the game. Play it.

Agreed. Don't deny someone the fun they looked forward to all week.

Yeah, there's nothing less fun than sitting around for 50 minutes while everyone else is playing the game. Happened to me once or twice. But there's nothing wrong with conceding what you feel is a lost game. When you're 5 minutes from time, have just a shuttle with 5 HP remaining vs an Interceptor or something, feel free to hand the game and get extra time to use the bathroom or grab a snack. It's just the idea of conceding immediately upon seeing a turret which is a bit silly.

I'd expect a player conceding because they don't like thier opponents squadron to be DQ'd from the event for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Turrets are EZ. Even if you suck at the game, they make it easier. If you are great at the game then you're breezing. They have their place in the game but anyone who's ever played a real 3D dog fighting game knows that all turrets have blind spots. FFG simplified this, hence making the easier to use....

See what I did there.

Everyone has their own idea of fun. Some people enjoy winning, so claiming that their enjoyment is subjective to your need to enjoy not playing against turrets is invalidated. Some people enjoy the tactical awareness of playing against something that can shoot them no matter where they are within range of a weapon. Just because you do not enjoy playing against turrets does not mean everyone doesn’t.

As I said, I typically have at least one turret in each of my lists. This is nowhere near “easy mode” as most turreted ships have poor agility, poor primary weapon damage, and poor movement. I can’t dogfight a Phantom or Interceptor in a Y-Wing, but they can maneuver in and out of my Ion Cannon Turret range very easily. I am not forcing them to only fly inside my fire arc while not targeting me.

It depends on how you play the game. If you don’t like facing turrets, then concede to your opponent at tournaments when you see they equip turrets. That way, you can continue to have fun without facing an opponent with turrets and your opponent can have fun without hearing how his turrets are not fun.

The alternative is to adapt and overcome. Learn some tactics to face turrets rather than complaining they don’t make it fun for you because they destroy you too quickly. If you don’t think that learning tactics during mock space combat is fun, then perhaps this is not the right game for you.

For the love of games, don't be the guy that concedes before the game is truly lost. There is nothing quite so fun ruining as a rage quitter. I'd take cheaters over rage quitters. I'd take smug rules lawyering racists over rage quitters. You're there to play the game. Play it.

I'm ok with someone conceding to me if the outcome appears to be obvious. If a person is already in the mind set to Rage Quit, I can't imagine they are fun to play with anymore beyond that point.

*Stirring the pot*

Would you rather sour the experience of a guy who took something; not fully capable of handling the new Falcon C3PO builds?

Sure it is "his fault" for not predicting the meta, but still.

*Stirring the pot*

Would you rather sour the experience of a guy who took something; not fully capable of handling the new Falcon C3PO builds?

Sure it is "his fault" for not predicting the meta, but still.

You can't predict the meta only adapt to it once it becomes well known what it is, taking the super falcon to anything but a tournament is like bringing a gun to a knife fight.

You can't predict the meta only adapt to it once it becomes well known what it is, taking the super falcon to anything but a tournament is like bringing a gun to a knife fight.

Nah, anything released and legal is fair game, in any game.

If you say "the super falcon should be saved for tournaments only", then you might as well say "ACD Phantoms should be saved for tournament only" or "PtL Interceptors should be saved for tournaments only".

The next thing you know, if you're playing with anything other than the core set cards then people are accusing you of being hypercompetitive.

Turrets are part of the game. They're not OP because they're generally on expensive platforms that are only capable of targeting one enemy ship per turn (YT's), or they're niche weapons that are useful in some instances, not so great in others (Y-Wing/HWK Ions & Blasters).

At the end of the day, if someone's going to bleat and whine about having to play against a ship that's been extensively playtested and has a very limited damage output for it's points, well, that's entirely their problem.

It is not the YT's damage output (which can be tailored to be quite consistent) which is the problem, it is its longevity.

The typical scenario is: as the opponent's list dwindles, the YT becomes stronger and if you fail to focus fire it (read: if you dont fly perfect, hope he doesn't bring Han + Engine Upgr. AND you bring enough guns AND you roll well) then you will lose when the timer hits zero.

Simple as.

Isn't this just semantics? Turrets are certainly easier, but turreted lists shouldn't be, as they should be costed accordingly, so you should have to use cunning to make up for the opportunity cost. Where this falls down, in my view, is the the 3 attack Falcon, which I feel is undercosted.

Turrets themselves are not to blame; you need them to counter the super mobile ships. Never had an issue with Y-Wings or HWKs, for example. But when you partner a range 3, Attack 3 turret with ridiculous durability, a great dial, and great maneuverability (even after the change to large ship barrel roll), that's where it falls down. The turret is OK, the supertank Falcon is not, and the problem is likely here to stay with the additions of the YT2400 and Decimator.

*Stirring the pot*

Would you rather sour the experience of a guy who took something; not fully capable of handling the new Falcon C3PO builds?

Sure it is "his fault" for not predicting the meta, but still.

You can't predict the meta only adapt to it once it becomes well known what it is, taking the super falcon to anything but a tournament is like bringing a gun to a knife fight.

Superfalcon dies to TIE fighters. Admittedly lots of TIE fighters, but it still dies.

*Stirring the pot*

Would you rather sour the experience of a guy who took something; not fully capable of handling the new Falcon C3PO builds?

Sure it is "his fault" for not predicting the meta, but still.

You can't predict the meta only adapt to it once it becomes well known what it is, taking the super falcon to anything but a tournament is like bringing a gun to a knife fight.

Superfalcon dies to TIE fighters. Admittedly lots of TIE fighters, but it still dies.

Yeah but what if people want to run something else something crazy like squints, superfalcon making some lists unplayable is a problem.

*Stirring the pot*

Would you rather sour the experience of a guy who took something; not fully capable of handling the new Falcon C3PO builds?

Sure it is "his fault" for not predicting the meta, but still.

You can't predict the meta only adapt to it once it becomes well known what it is, taking the super falcon to anything but a tournament is like bringing a gun to a knife fight.

Superfalcon dies to TIE fighters. Admittedly lots of TIE fighters, but it still dies.

Yeah but what if people want to run something else something crazy like squints, superfalcon making some lists unplayable is a problem.

And what if someone just wants to fly the Falcon? Is it their fault the other player is running paper to their scissors?

Fly some Zs with Cluster Missiles and the Falcon just melts.

*Stirring the pot*

Would you rather sour the experience of a guy who took something; not fully capable of handling the new Falcon C3PO builds?

Sure it is "his fault" for not predicting the meta, but still.

You can't predict the meta only adapt to it once it becomes well known what it is, taking the super falcon to anything but a tournament is like bringing a gun to a knife fight.

Superfalcon dies to TIE fighters. Admittedly lots of TIE fighters, but it still dies.

Yeah but what if people want to run something else something crazy like squints, superfalcon making some lists unplayable is a problem.

And what if someone just wants to fly the Falcon? Is it their fault the other player is running paper to their scissors?

Fly some Zs with Cluster Missiles and the Falcon just melts.

Yeah great for rebels what about the imp players?

There clearly is an issue with falcons being too prominent in lists you only have to look at top placement from tournaments, when you have a bunch of great ships you cant fly because superfalcon only has one decent imperial counter that needs looking at.