So it's no secret that "Fat Han" type builds are good. Paul just won Worlds with one. This thread isn't meant to start an argument over whether or not they're too good, something about the game needs to be fixed, C-3PO needs to be banned, etc. Rather, I'm just curious about a hypothetical situation and what effect it would've had/could have on the game.

Ships with natural Turrets get to enjoy that luxury from Range 1 all the way to Range 3. But any Turret upgrades only function at Range 1-2 (and soon we'll have one only for Range 1). What if that was the case for natural Turrets as well? What if any ship that could by default shoot outside its firing arc could only do so at Range 1-2? I don't have much (any, really) experience with the build. Would it affect "Fat Han" builds, and how? Would it affect counters to those builds and how?

Some other effects I can think of:

- The only way to get a Range 3 shot is through the primary firing arc, making Missiles a tad more attractive, as they can also hit at the longer range and you might be trying to stay pointed at the enemy more often.

- Outrider becomes an even better Title, changing range from 1-2 to 2-3 with Heavy Laser Cannon or 1-3 with Ion Cannon; this does nothing compared to the way it currently works, it would just be a much larger change from a different norm.

- PS11 with Engine Upgrade might be even more necessary, to make sure you can get back into Range 2.

Please discuss (civilly)!

It pretty much knocks the Falcon and Decimator out of competitive play.

I'd wait to see what the StarViper has in store first: supposedly FFG's solution to the turret problem.

Somehow I prefere the term 'Han Shoots First'-List or HSF

But since this is not the topic, I'd say even as an Imperial player: No.

No, I like the challenge. And there will be an upgrade that will help (hopefully)

In the OP I said I wasn't interested in whether or not it was necessary. I was just curious about what effects it could have on the game.

Change the points costs to represent the reduced range. Then it's fine. Except for the CR90.

It would make pure Interceptor lists viable (or any list that functions purely on maneuverability really). It would also make it so that the turreted ships would have to take into account everything that every other ship has to take into account.

Except for the CR90.

True. I haven't played Epic and don't have any plans to anytime soon, so I'm almost always speaking about 100-point dogfights.

Let's not find ways to encourage more people to play Outrider.

Any "fix" that doesn't take Super Dash into account is incredibly short sighted.

It's. Not. A. Fix. It's a hypothetical. Sheesh.

And your hypothetical would eliminate both the Falcon and Decimator from the competitive arena. It is a terrible idea.

What is your reasoning for that statement? Back it up with something, or it's not a discussion.

___________

\

\

\

\

^^^ Look, it's a tangent:

This made me think - how about torpedoes and missiles that can fire up to range four?

___________

\

\

\

\

^^^ Look, it's a tangent:

This made me think - how about torpedoes and missiles that can fire up to range four?

Oh, the tangent ascii art doesn't display after you submit. Might need to edit on a PC?

Although it doesn't make much sense fluff wise, how about a compromise where it's range 1-3 for front AND rear arc (like a firespray), and then side arcs are range 1-2.

I would say no, but I would prefer the blaster and ion turrets to be 1 point cheaper. I feel the blaster turret is especially difficult to use...it's either too expensive or requires too many hoops to leap through.

For the sake of argument, however, I think it would be fitting if range three shots outside the firing arc couldn't be modified. It could still be effective, but not overpowered.

I would say no

Would say "no" to what?

I didn't ask if it was necessary, I asked what everyone thought the effect on the game would be.

There, now maybe everyone will actually read the OP.

I'd wait to see what the StarViper has in store first: supposedly FFG's solution to the turret problem.

I've heard this sentiment from FFG twice before regarding swarms. They said that about Assault Missiles and Blount.

I'll believe it when I see it.

A better idea would be that the player flying the turret has to pick 1 of the 4 sides to rotate the turret during.

lol

No, that isn't what FFG said. That is what everyone else was saying. Seriously, Assault Missiles were decried as overpowered counters to Swarms. Until they were actually played. I'm not expecting this all mighty counter to turrets like some, just something that adds a little bit to fight the turret.

As for the change and the effect on a ships competitiveness, well, I think all that needs to be said is just how much more of an advantage this gives the Phantom.

I would say no

Would say "no" to what?

I didn't ask if it was necessary, I asked what everyone thought the effect on the game would be.

There, now maybe everyone will actually read the OP.

Haha nevermind then, homie.

Without a corresponding dramatic drop in price, turret ships would go away. A bit silly considering the iconic nature of the Falcon.

Personally, I've never understood the furor over turrets. They are just a thing that is in the game, like shields or high agility. They are good against some things (3 Interceptor lists) and bad against others (TIE swarms). If I had to conjecture, I would say the reason why turrets cause so much anal discomfort is that they level the skill playing field. You are not going to get champion point-for-point mileage out of a turret ship, but you are not going to just lose horribly either. Interestingly, that applies to your opponent as well. It doesn't matter how wacky-skilled you are, Fat Han is probably going to kill his weight in points. The real shenaningans occurs when you (the opponent) drop the ball and don't focus on Han first, allowing him to chip away at you and kill MORE than his weight in points.

This made me think - how about torpedoes and missiles that can fire up to range four?

I made a similar suggestion once - lots of discussion on extended range ordnance available here.

Maybe I should have called it a "hypothetical" instead of a "fix".

Change the points costs to represent the reduced range. Then it's fine. Except for the CR90.

It would not be applicable to the CR90 full stop - the CR90 has it's own rules for range.

It would make the Falcon and other ships underpowered, even a reduction in points wouldn't be enough IMO to fix it. There's just way too many unintended consequences with this for points to fix it.

As for the change and the effect on a ships competitiveness, well, I think all that needs to be said is just how much more of an advantage this gives the Phantom.

How so? I'd honestly like to hear these opinions explained. A lot of Falcons are running PS9+ and/or with Engine Upgrade, which means they have the tools to keep even Phantoms at Range1-2. So what is it about losing one range band that suddenly makes them that much worse against one of their better match-ups?

Personally, I've never understood the furor over turrets.

Again, missing the point. This is not furor over turrets. This is trying [and failing] to discuss what a Range 1-2 turret game would look like.

Maybe I should have called it a "hypothetical" instead of a "fix".

Apparently it's a good strategy for getting people to misunderstand the purpose of your thread.

It would make the Falcon and other ships underpowered, even a reduction in points wouldn't be enough IMO to fix it. There's just way too many unintended consequences with this for points to fix it.

...go on...