People have been talking a lot lately about all these falcon builds in response to phantoms. C-3PO and Gunner seem to be incredibly common... and since the introduction of the Dash Rendar crew card, people have talked about not knowing which of the two crew to sacrifice to make room for him.

It got me thinking about how I almost never use gunner anymore on any ship. I mean, I GET that it has some value, and I can even understand the price point... but I just don't think it works for MY playstyle and I'll explain why.

(though to be fair I COULD probably use it with Han Solo as Pilot - but that is probably the only case).

1) I think picking Gunner is effectively planning for failure. You are already expecting your attack to miss, so you want to have a backup plan.

2) If you miss with your first attack, are you really going to have saved your focus / TL for your second attack? I figure statistically you are going to spend all your goodies on the first run, and have little to nothing left over for the 2nd shot. So effectively your second shot will be weaker.

3) and if you DO save your goodies for the second shot, a smart player can outwit you, by opting not to spend his focus or evade... and otherwise allowing a single point of damage through, just so you don't get your second shot.

Who is better than gunner(offensively)?

Kyle Katarn - lots of possibilities here, but essentially you can get a free focus every turn, or every OTHER turn at a minimum.

Han Solo - I've not used him yet but I plan to on a B-Wing once aces hits. Lots of options with only a single action.

Weapons Engineer - Doesn't get used much but it is a great way to maximize efficiency and easily allow yourself to get TL + Focus, which just rocks. Also has some great synergy with Han Solo crew.

Tactician - Very cool ability - probably less suited to a turreted ship, but still cool.

Honorable Mentions:

Recon Specialist and Lando - both are more versatile and can be both offensive AND defensive (wouldn't recommend both of them at the same time however).

So what do you think? Am I missing something? Is gunner more of a defensive option in your eyes? Assuming you spend your action for evade?

Gunner can be nice if you take your action defensively. Gives you two tries to get a raw attack to hit.

I do love playing against people with gunner who roll 1 hit, and decide to save their focus/target lock for gunner thinking I will evade, only for me to not evade and only get 1 damage!

Gunner 'buys' consistency.

Consistency is key if you have a large, points-expensive ship.

Gunner is planning for failure in the same way Focus otpe Target lock are. It's a damage increase. And one that psynergizes well with other damage increasers. It all depends how you look at it. It's at its most useful against high agility ships, and performs well for the points against everything with 2 agility or higher.

I'm guessing you also don't like munitions failsafe, but do like interceptors and A-wings?

Your perfectly right for a particular style of play. You can play high risk, high reward which gunner runs counter to, or you can play for consistency and an assured, modest average, which gunner works very well with.

It is purely a choice of play style.

The first attack can also set up the gunner attack by stripping tokens, exposing (lower case) an enemy ship after the first go round.

Gunner has its uses imo.

Like it was said above its good for high agility ships.

You roll two or three hits your opponent is also likely to spend their focus and evade, leaving them with nothing for the next attack.

But as the Op mentioned an easy way around that is just take the one hit if you can.

One is much better than two or three

"No plan survives contact with the enemy"
...so sayeth the great Jedi master Sun-Tzu.

Since I'm going to guess the enemy will be trying to do everything that they can to avoid getting hit, I'm going to bring every "insurance policy" to make sure that they fail at their attempt. That may include Gunner and possibly Fire Control System to go with it. Depends on the build, and how I'm feeling about it.

Basically what Elkerlyc said... Gunner is to ensure some sort of damage consistency which with a falcon build. Gunner actually really shines when you can pair it with an attack based boost like marksmanship.

Saving focus or electing to take 1 pt of damage is part of the strategy of the card and build (for both players). While you might think clever not using your evade... you just took damage AND my card showed value even without having to use it. While not the best outcome with gunner and saving focus... I would take it.

It comes down to whether or not you think an insurance policy is worth paying extra points for. Navigator, Stay on Target, Tetran Cowall, Munitions Failsafe, Engine Upgrade, Dash Rendar (Pilot AND Crew) and others could be judged similarly. You are paying extra in case an often quite specific unfortunate event takes place, so then you have another chance or at times a chance at all.

There are definitely other options to each of these cards, and many of them, notably Gunner, are definitely expensive. If you have ever played a Falcon and rolled multiple consecutive blank attacks, you would definitely appreciate gunner. However, there are very few ships in the game with a crew slot and even fewer that I would consider such a pricey upgrade on.

Playstyle is everything. Interesting discussion, Crabbok!

I'm guessing you also don't like munitions failsafe, but do like interceptors and A-wings?

Your perfectly right for a particular style of play. You can play high risk, high reward which gunner runs counter to, or you can play for consistency and an assured, modest average, which gunner works very well with.

It is purely a choice of play style.

I typically don't like munitions failsafe for the same reason... however with some builds I can see it. If I'm going with Assault Missiles on Z-95's for example, I'm going to have to spend my target lock - so I NEED to rely on luck for the hit. But if I'm using other missiles, I usually rely on other factors, like my Maarek Stele build-a-squad video shows... Maarek with Marskmanship, and Cluster Missile... Capt Jonus for rerolls, and Vader with Squad Leader - giving Maarek Stele a TL, and Marksmanship, and rerolls on both shots from the cluster missile..... no failsafe needed for that shot.

"No plan survives contact with the enemy"

...so sayeth the great Jedi master Sun-Tzu.

Since I'm going to guess the enemy will be trying to do everything that they can to avoid getting hit, I'm going to bring every "insurance policy" to make sure that they fail at their attempt. That may include Gunner and possibly Fire Control System to go with it. Depends on the build, and how I'm feeling about it.

See and this is a good counterpoint. FCS works BETTER if you have gunner, and save your focus. I've never actually run a Buzz-Saw build before so I probably should try... but this way you WANT your first attack to miss so you can get the golden 2nd shot. That much seems reasonable.

Three cards:

1. C-3P0
2. Millennium Falcon
3. Predator

Gunner/Luke fits with these upgrades perfectly. Spend your action on evade, and get 2 guaranteed evades per round. Predator gives a reroll on each attack. Engine Upgrade can also get added for more defensive options.

I agree; one thing is more fun than a buzzsaw shuttle; 2 buzzsaw shuttles!

The reason why the 3PO + Gunner combo is so popular is exactly because of what someone already stated, action used defensively. Wanting to make sure you get as much out of your offense as possible (For me it means both Predator and Gunner), you take something to make sure you've maximized your chance of doing damage, and if it comes down to zero hits, or 1 hit because they're afraid of my gunner, I'll take the single hit. In my experience though, it has been a rare occasion that Gunner hasn't been consistently useful for getting more damage throughout a game.

Gunner is like an insurance policy. You pay for it and hope you never need it but its there if you do, especially on my beautiful decimator with the three magnanimous crew slots.

Edit: Also I very much like anything that increases my chances of dealing damage.

As for your original question...

Gunner almost guarantees 1 damage each round.

If I needed 2-3 pts to fit another ship in my list I would consider replacing gunner with your options otherwise I probably would not.

I agree; one thing is more fun than a buzzsaw shuttle; 2 buzzsaw shuttles!

And the only thing better than that is THREE buzzsaw shuttles, one of them Captain Yorr!

1) Yes, you're "planning for failure", but failure is an indisputable fact. You will not hit with every shot unless you're using loaded dice, so you can almost guarantee that gunner will give you additional shots that you otherwise wouldn't have.

2) Gunner is typically used with marksmanship or predator, which apply equally to both attacks.

3) I really don't see how "my opponent voluntarily takes damage" is really such a bad thing. Without gunner they take zero damage in that situation. With gunner they take at least one damage because of the threat of taking more. You've essentially paid 5 points to get "your attacks always do a minimum of one damage".

I agree; one thing is more fun than a buzzsaw shuttle; 2 buzzsaw shuttles!

And the only thing better than that is THREE buzzsaw shuttles, one of them Captain Yorr!

I actually would like that but I am a weedy, scaredygirl and prefer to fly Soontir as an insurance policy vs dodgy gits.

Gunner 'buys' consistency.

Consistency is key if you have a large, points-expensive ship.

You have such a great signature.

I'd actually say you're preparing for failure more so than planning for it. Planning implies that you want or expect to fail. Preparing for failure gives you an out should something go wrong. As in my previous post, I consider many of these cards insurance policies. You PROBABLY wouldn't need them in most situations, but in case you do, they are there.

1) Yes, you're "planning for failure", but failure is an indisputable fact. You will not hit with every shot unless you're using loaded dice, so you can almost guarantee that gunner will give you additional shots that you otherwise wouldn't have.

2) Gunner is typically used with marksmanship or predator, which apply equally to both attacks.

3) I really don't see how "my opponent voluntarily takes damage" is really such a bad thing. Without gunner they take zero damage in that situation. With gunner they take at least one damage because of the threat of taking more. You've essentially paid 5 points to get "your attacks always do a minimum of one damage".

but they don't. if you roll blanks you could easily roll blanks again. And if I've got a 50+ point ship that takes 3 turns to kill a single TIE Fighter.... well i'm not gonna win that way.

I see that it takes some risk out of the die roll... but so does a Target Lock. So does Predator + Focus..... and those things are cheaper AND can deal more damage. Not trying to dismiss your idea, I guess I've just lost too many games by playing defensively.

Actually, if my Gunner never goes off, it usually means I'm doing pretty good work with my first attack. Which is fine by me.

Also, Gunner + Predator = Nastiness. Pretty much guranteed to get damage through unless your opponent is rolling evades like crazy.

The evidence and domination of gunner builds is readily apparent. Dislike it or like it, it's effect is proven.