I have never run with Gunner but after reading these forums I am going to try throwing him in crew slot and seeing how he works.

I usually run Space Cows with FCS. Free TL every attack for 2 points is worth it to me. Not sure if I'd run with Gunner, I'm usually considering EU with those points instead.

However throwing 5 more points on a base 21 point shuttle is not the same as a 50+Falcon. That's a lot of points and you need to hit since your single attack is over half your fleet points.

If I ran Falcons I'd probably do the same. My 20-something point shuttle misses with one re-roll+focus...and I've got another 70-ish points of fleet to play with...your Falcon misses and you are down to your escort pair/mini swarm/ or mayhap other Falcon?

See, this is an excellent thread to counter all those "This forum hates people who say something doesn't work."

We don't hate people who do that. We dislike people who simply say "This card breaks the game" and gives barely, if any, logical and structured reason why they believe it's broken.

As much as I can disagree with Crabbok at times (yes, it's true!), a well structured argument was presented with several points why the suggestion that the Gunner card may not be viable, along with several questions as to how alternate solutions could be found. Not just "Gunner sucks and I hate it and it's broken, because FFG is stupid."

Logic. Try it! It's free and very useful!

See, this is an excellent thread to counter all those "This forum hates people who say something doesn't work."

We don't hate people who do that. We dislike people who simply say "This card breaks the game" and gives barely, if any, logical and structured reason why they believe it's broken.

As much as I can disagree with Crabbok at times (yes, it's true!), a well structured argument was presented with several points why the suggestion that the Gunner card may not be viable, along with several questions as to how alternate solutions could be found. Not just "Gunner sucks and I hate it and it's broken, because FFG is stupid."

Logic. Try it! It's free and very useful!

Constructive discussion and everybody wins!

It all depends on your perspective when approaching the subject. I didn't approach it from the position of being correct - (well not 100% correct). One of the keys to communication is being willing to listen, and some posts simply don't convey that idea.

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?

I'm in the uncomfortable position of disagreeing with you on the fundamentals, but at least often agreeing with you on your overall conclusion.

Gunner is an excellent upgrade. My favorite formulation is the one theGreedyMerchant used: it's an insurance policy against unlucky dice (meaning an overall damage result of 0). Like any other insurance policy, its value depends on both how likely you are to suffer a "loss" and how much the payout is.

So in a double-Falcon list, I think the payout is too big to ignore: with just two attacks per round, you can't afford to lose a round's worth of attacks to one of those fun blank/blank/focus rolls when all you have is an evade token. There you bring a Gunner because 5 points is cheap compared to what it costs you to miss out on that attack.

In a list with (e.g.) a Phantom and a mini-swarm, though, I think it's absurd. You're rolling 4-5 dice, probably with a token to modify them, which means you're not going to miss very often--a "loss" in terms of a miss is so unlikely, averaged across the metagame, that regardless of how high the payout is (and it's very high, actually), you're unlikely to see a need for Gunner often enough to justify paying 5 points for it.

But the key thing, I think, is that it is all about playstyle and preferences--or I guess your tolerance for risk, really. If consistency is very important to you, or it's an important aspect of your strategy, then you probably see Gunner as worth it. If consistency is less important to you than stopping power, than investing in the main attack itself (rather than in planning for the attack's failure, as someone upthread put it) is probably a better use of your points.

Anecdotal point but on-topic nonetheless.

I added Tactician to my Gunner + FCS shuttle and happened to be targeting a Krassis at Range 2.

It was a dismaying result when I rolled a hit and two focuses. I had a focus to spend, which I wanted to save for the gunner's shot which would be TL'ed due to FCS or even for defense if the TL reroll went well. But if my buddy's green dice (which were naked since he'd already fired and spent his token that round) failed him, as they were reasonably able to do, then obviously I'd want to spend the focus and get it up to 3 hits going through instead of 1.

I took the gamble and it paid off, I got my gunner shot for the double stress and got damage through on the gunner shot to boot.

But the only reason that gamble was worth it was to get the second stress token on there. In a normal situation I'd have gone for the 3 damage.

FFG rules don't allow you to elect not to roll attack/defense dice, nor do they allow you to roll fewer than the maximum. Do you think they should?

FFG rules don't allow you to elect not to roll attack/defense dice, nor do they allow you to roll fewer than the maximum. Do you think they should?

For the sake of both simplicity and balance, I'd say no. If you could elect not to roll attack dice, you could run Gunner + Tactician and decide to roll 0 dice for your first attack--generating an automatic miss, a stress, and a second attack from Gunner.

if you roll blanks you could easily roll blanks again.

You could, but it's not very likely. Remember that you probably have predator or marksmanship, so the odds of rolling no hits or crits after modifying dice are pretty small.

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.

But that's NOT what you have. Your opponent isn't guaranteed to roll well enough to take your shot down to one hit instead of 2-3, and without gunner they just spend the focus/evade token and take ZERO damage. So instead of taking three turns to kill that TIE you're taking infinite turns.

and those things are cheaper AND can deal more damage.

This is wrong. They're cheaper than gunner (but not by that much, gunner is a fairly small investment compared to the total cost of the ship), but they can not do more damage. Why? Because focus/target lock/etc are used in addition to gunner. If you're doing X damage every game with focus/target lock/predator/etc then you're doing X+Y damage with gunner.

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.

Target Lock maybe, but you won't spend your focus if you'll still miss, so you've got that.

As for 3, then a point of damage got through that, if you hadn't had Gunner, would not. That's not a wasted Gunner.

Predator and Fire control systems are what make Gunner an absolute nightmare.

I missed ? No worries i get an "actionfull" round again, hope you didn't lose any tokens before.

FFG rules don't allow you to elect not to roll attack/defense dice, nor do they allow you to roll fewer than the maximum. Do you think they should?

For the sake of both simplicity and balance, I'd say no. If you could elect not to roll attack dice, you could run Gunner + Tactician and decide to roll 0 dice for your first attack--generating an automatic miss, a stress, and a second attack from Gunner.

FFG rules don't allow you to elect not to roll attack/defense dice, nor do they allow you to roll fewer than the maximum. Do you think they should?

For the sake of both simplicity and balance, I'd say no. If you could elect not to roll attack dice, you could run Gunner + Tactician and decide to roll 0 dice for your first attack--generating an automatic miss, a stress, and a second attack from Gunner.

I agree, you are required to roll dice for such reasons. You could elect not to roll, triggering tactician, and then tactician tirggers again on your second attack. On the Decimator, You can pair a gunner with TWO tacticians, and deal four stress. Now, if you are that deadset on dealing multiple stress, you can modify dice using actions to miss on purpose, but this is generally a bad strategy. I'd rather take 2 stress than 2 damage in almost any situation as a defender, and I'd want to do my best to deal damage as an attacker, even with stressing upgrades.

FFG rules don't allow you to elect not to roll attack/defense dice, nor do they allow you to roll fewer than the maximum. Do you think they should?

For the sake of both simplicity and balance, I'd say no. If you could elect not to roll attack dice, you could run Gunner + Tactician and decide to roll 0 dice for your first attack--generating an automatic miss, a stress, and a second attack from Gunner.

Indeed. But it also works for the defense sometimes, too.

I recall a game where Han used his reroll and wound up generating 1 hit vs. a squint of mine, and I'd really have liked to be able to not roll defense dice against that, because gunner triggered and he got 2 more chances as a result.

I can't really think of any other situations where it would be applicable, though, so maybe the simplicity argument is a winner.

Gunner & Marksmanship. Like it or not, you're gonna get got.

Good responses guys. I think at least from my experience, I just play very rarely ever have an attack that "misses". I always try to ensure that I've got TL and/or focus. So most times with any 3 dice ship, I'm gonna at LEAST do one damage... but it could be that I've simply been fortunate, or that players in my local community typically play offensively as well, creating a world where "Everyone Always Hits"... evade tokens almost never come out of the tackle box at the store I frequent.

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.

This feels like an argument against named falcons more than gunner. You're right, if you're doing 0-1 damage per turn, you're in trouble. You probably shouldn't eat half your points on 1 ship.

Gunner at least makes that 1 ship function closer to two. While you can roll two sets of blanks in a row, it's unlikely. You're far more likely to roll something else.

I consider gunner a very offensive move. You're betting on dealing damage regularly with them. 3P0 is playing defensive, and I'm not sure why you'd want to replace either of them with Dash. Dash lets you shoot while on a rock, but you've already pointed out how much weaker action-less attacks are. As far as shooting through cover, I'd rather have 2 consistent attempts than spend 2 points to negate him hiding behind a rock (especially considering he has even more chances of rolling blanks than I do)

Good responses guys. I think at least from my experience, I just play very rarely ever have an attack that "misses". I always try to ensure that I've got TL and/or focus. So most times with any 3 dice ship, I'm gonna at LEAST do one damage... but it could be that I've simply been fortunate, or that players in my local community typically play offensively as well, creating a world where "Everyone Always Hits"... evade tokens almost never come out of the tackle box at the store I frequent.

And there are people who use dodge or engine to arc dodge, and rely on gunner/luke + something to do the killing instead. They had been fairly consistent.

I don't like it solo. Like Bounty + Gunner.

I do like TacGunner Shuttle though. Lots of fun.

I wish Mercenary Co-pilot was 1 pt.

I like gunner but I find myself using it a lot less than I once was.

Getting one point of damage

Often if I'm on the receiving end of a gunner attack, I'll choose not to spend that evade or focus token so that the enemy gets one hit through, particularly if they have rolled badly. I'll do this especially if they have it combined with predator, FCS, etc.

Cost

It's a lot of points that you're dumping onto what is usually an already expensive ship, which is sometimes a good thing and sometimes it is a bad thing. If you're paying for redundancy that you don't need, you could be spending the points better elsewhere and five points is nothing to sneeze at.

Good responses guys. I think at least from my experience, I just play very rarely ever have an attack that "misses". I always try to ensure that I've got TL and/or focus. So most times with any 3 dice ship, I'm gonna at LEAST do one damage... but it could be that I've simply been fortunate, or that players in my local , community typically play offensively as well, creating a world where "Everyone Always Hits"... evade tokens almost never come out of the tackle box at the store I frequent.

You blasphemous crab you!

Gunner is great for consistency to be sure. But I can see it conflicting with a higher risk/reward style of play.

Its just one more tool in the toolbox. You don't have to use it,but it's always nice to have.

I feel like gunner + fire control system + Stygium Particle Accelerator is just about the only way to run a Sigma Phantom. You really want to maximize the 4 red dice on that ship, and a bad roll can actually set you up to have a TL + Focus when your gunner kicks on.

And the SPA makes your phantom more survivable when it's decloaked. All in all, its got a really good action economy, at a fairly good point total.