Minor point: Paul's list was conceived when he got beat by that version of Han at Nationals. It's now one of the top 2 falcon builds and the one that pushed me from "good but beatable" to, well, a more frustrated take on Large Base Turrets.

Lol it's very beatable

Didn't say it wasn't, but multiple times seen those 7 points account for almost doubling the health of a falcon, and it's not fun or even interesting to face, especially in a 60 minute round.

Idk I like going up against it. We have different criteria for fun I guess.

Out of curiosity, what do you enjoy flying against them?

It's a race against the clock and against the list becoming invincible. The clock being the 60 minute tournament round and the invincible part meaning that it becomes impossible to beat under certain circumstances.

I certainly understand that perspective and the rewarding aspect. However, I'm of the perspective that I think it's a problem with a ship if there's a point where it can become invincible regardless of how much work you've done on it to get to that point (and a reason I'd really like to see half points or something awarded).

Turrets make sense on the ships they are on, but it's a more realistic mechanic that would interest me.

For example, I like the balance of needing a focus to use blaster turret, but only for shots outside of your primary firing arc because that should take some focus - flying and twisting around to shoot at a moving target that isn't in front of you. If in your front arc then I don't see a need for the focus though. Furthermore, if you have a crew member capable of firing a turret weapon (C3PO really doesn't come to mind) then why require a focus for blaster turret?

So in sum, using that logic, I'd propose to balance turret weapons a bit more by:

1. Requiring that a focus be spent if the target is not in your primary arc and a crew member isn't present. Otherwise;

2. If a focus isn't spent or a crew member isn't on board, a defender outside the primary firing arc receives one bonus defense dice.

3. And in all cases, C3PO does not count toward the crew member prerequisite in 1 or 2 above.

Quitting tournaments is definitely not the answer. Discussing potential alternative mechanics to make the game even better is a great part of the forum and gaming community though.

It's a race against the clock and against the list becoming invincible. The clock being the 60 minute tournament round and the invincible part meaning that it becomes impossible to beat under certain circumstances.

I certainly understand that perspective and the rewarding aspect. However, I'm of the perspective that I think it's a problem with a ship if there's a point where it can become invincible regardless of how much work you've done on it to get to that point (and a reason I'd really like to see half points or something awarded).

I'm in a similar boat that it gets pretty frustrating and annoying to play against rather than challenging and fun.

The difference for me comes down to the fact that, rather than relying on maneuvers to outplay it, it's essentially a dice off. Even if you do everything in your power to shaft the large turret, no matter how perfectly you position to manipulate probability (move damage ships to range 3, block to deny actions etc.), the **** thing will always have a shot and is often just a few good rolls away from going out of control.

There's nothing more frustrating than setting up a nice block and training your entire squad on a Ps 9/10 fattie only to have your opponent roll perfect dice and eviscerate one of your ships, because it renders all the planning and rewards of a successful activation phase pretty ******* pointless.

It'd be nice if those ships actually had to chose between being completely defensive or utilizing its offense, kind of like everything else in the game, but only the Outrider suffers from that kind of weakness because it's the only one with a blindspot. Until mathematicians discover the 361st degree, any resistance to large turreted ships should always utter a small prayer to RNGesus before proceeding to engage it in battle.

That's why I, personally, don't like them or the popularity they've received post Wave 5. They're manageable, provided you bring ships that don't lend themselves to being one-shot (and stay out of range 1 of non-Outriders), but there will always be that small handful of games where the opponent will pull a win from the darkest recesses of his ass.

It's a race against the clock and against the list becoming invincible. The clock being the 60 minute tournament round and the invincible part meaning that it becomes impossible to beat under certain circumstances.

I certainly understand that perspective and the rewarding aspect. However, I'm of the perspective that I think it's a problem with a ship if there's a point where it can become invincible regardless of how much work you've done on it to get to that point (and a reason I'd really like to see half points or something awarded).

I'm in a similar boat that it gets pretty frustrating and annoying to play against rather than challenging and fun.

The difference for me comes down to the fact that, rather than relying on maneuvers to outplay it, it's essentially a dice off. Even if you do everything in your power to shaft the large turret, no matter how perfectly you position to manipulate probability (move damage ships to range 3, block to deny actions etc.), the **** thing will always have a shot and is often just a few good rolls away from going out of control.

There's nothing more frustrating than setting up a nice block and training your entire squad on a Ps 9/10 fattie only to have your opponent roll perfect dice and eviscerate one of your ships, because it renders all the planning and rewards of a successful activation phase pretty ******* pointless.

It'd be nice if those ships actually had to chose between being completely defensive or utilizing its offense, kind of like everything else in the game, but only the Outrider suffers from that kind of weakness because it's the only one with a blindspot. Until mathematicians discover the 361st degree, any resistance to large turreted ships should always utter a small prayer to RNGesus before proceeding to engage it in battle.

That's why I, personally, don't like them or the popularity they've received post Wave 5. They're manageable, provided you bring ships that don't lend themselves to being one-shot (and stay out of range 1 of non-Outriders), but there will always be that small handful of games where the opponent will pull a win from the darkest recesses of his ass.

Bad dice rolls can happen at anytime at any point. Its just part of it being a dice game. Soontir Fel can die at range 3 behind a rock with a stealth device to a lonely prototype pilot. Yeah its unlikely and the odds are in your favor of surviving but once it happens the game has dramatically changed. In games of dice people will have the chance of coming back from the brink of defeat.

That's why I, personally, don't like them or the popularity they've received post Wave 5.

The problem with the YT's in the current meta is not the turret, not really.

If that was the issue, you'd of seen them in the 2013 worlds or other major tournaments. HSF has always been a popular list, but has never been seen much in the top tables.

The issue with the current YT's is the Turret + Hyper Mobile + Lots of HP's + Stacked Defense. A lot of what you can do with a Fat Han today you could do in Wave 4. Han + Jan, Han + Corran, Han + B's, ect... all of that were options back then. Remove any one of those 4 things and the Fat Pancake starts to fall apart.

The problem with the YT's in the current meta is not the turret, not really.

If that was the issue, you'd of seen them in the 2013 worlds or other major tournaments. HSF has always been a popular list, but has never been seen much in the top tables.

The issue with the current YT's is the Turret + Hyper Mobile + Lots of HP's + Stacked Defense. A lot of what you can do with a Fat Han today you could do in Wave 4. Han + Jan, Han + Corran, Han + B's, ect... all of that were options back then. Remove any one of those 4 things and the Fat Pancake starts to fall apart.

I think at least part of this is tied into the turret, though - specifically, the hyper mobility. When you can commit 100% of your maneuver to avoiding your opponent's arcs without having to worry about pointing your nose at the target, you can mitigate a great deal of damage. Other ships with traditional arcs will often end in a position where if they want a shot, they're taking one back.

i couldn't agree more.

Bad dice rolls can happen at anytime at any point. Its just part of it being a dice game. Soontir Fel can die at range 3 behind a rock with a stealth device to a lonely prototype pilot. Yeah its unlikely and the odds are in your favor of surviving but once it happens the game has dramatically changed. In games of dice people will have the chance of coming back from the brink of defeat.

Missing the point here

Bad dice happen, but turreted ships are unique in that dice always happen so there's always a chance unlike with other ships that you can guarantee will have no shots with proper maneuvering

Just had a game yesterday where my B-wing got one-rounded by two absolutely perfect HLC rolls, but I was still able to win because of a combination of blocks and great K-turns that let my remaining B-wing get behind the enemy.

If the HLC was instead a turreted ship, it would have been able to capitalize on its incredibly lucky rolls by continuous firing no matter what I had (sans running into it, in which case I also wouldn't have a shot).

Arced ships, even firesprays, all have blind-spots you can maneuver into if you wish to avoid your opponent getting lucky. With turreted ships there is no way to prevent such things short of forcing them on an asteroid.

That's why I personally think they're incredibly dull, because they can devalue the RNGless portion of the game (maneuvering) and over-emphasize the dice. The best an opponent can do is endeavor to throw as much dice as possible at a turret and, in the case that you deny it an action by blocking or forcing a maneuver through an obstruction, hope it does not get lucky. You lose too many ships to RNG, which could be just one, and you might simply not be able to out-dice the turret.

This does not make for an entertaining game, imo.

I've been getting revenge with the decimator, i've had to deal with turrets for long enough now someone else gets to feel my pain!

If you don't find the game fun anymore then I would not play, but personally when I see a Falcon on my opponents side of the field I smile because I know victory is mine.

I think at least part of this is tied into the turret, though - specifically, the hyper mobility.

I think it's all part of the problem, but no one single part is all that bad, it's when you start piling them all together you get something greater than the sum of it's parts.

Y-Wings with ICT aren't seen as a huge issue.

Hypermobile B-Wings aren't considered broken.

C-3PO or R2-D2 on a HWK wouldn't cause 2-3 treads a day.

Han Shot First never won any major tournament that I know of, or even made it to the final 8.

Before Z-95's and C-3PO, you could make a hypermobile YT-1300, yet we didn't see that a ton.

I agree with what Theorist said, that 3PO bordered on being a mistake. I'm not sure if YT+3PO didn't come up in play testing, or if it took the Z-95 to really push the synergy over the top.

It seems like we're stuck comparing apples to oranges here. These comparisons are in a vacuum where advantages are overblown and drawbacks ignored. Nothing against any poster's feelings, but anyone flying the Fat Han or similar is doing so at a premium. There are a lot of good things about the choice, but not without cost. First, it costs squadron points, more than half a list. Second, it limits the list composition to two good ships or [insert turret large ship here] and his escorts. Both of these features are drawbacks and should be taken into account.

In Vanor's estimation, it is true that a lot of individuals who play the game will follow what they've read as successful on a forum. It's equally true that world class players, like Paul Heaver, will fly certain ships because they deem them as a list with high potential.

Paul didn't win worlds because of his choice of Fat Han however. He won because he chose a squadron, practiced against multiple meta threats, and flew well when it mattered. Those three things in conjunction will work to make nearly any list a viable competitor. "Know thyself, know the enemy. One thousand battles, one thousand victories."

It seems like we're stuck comparing apples to oranges here. These comparisons are in a vacuum where advantages are overblown and drawbacks ignored. Nothing against any poster's feelings, but anyone flying the Fat Han or similar is doing so at a premium. There are a lot of good things about the choice, but not without cost. First, it costs squadron points, more than half a list. Second, it limits the list composition to two good ships or [insert turret large ship here] and his escorts. Both of these features are drawbacks and should be taken into account.

The argument about the "premium" of those LBTs may have had some legs early on, but since the release of 3PO that "premium" has become a bargain.

No choice in this game is without cost. The issue comes in when that cost is not commiserate with the risks, or those risks can be mitigated through other very cost effective choices and upgrades. I'd agree with Vanor, and said it before myself, that it's the combination of upgrades that can be taken, especially on a Falcon and not one in particular.

Particularly with regard to Fat Han, that cost actually becomes an advantage in a competitive setting because of the defensive upgrades that make it a such a challenge to bring down and can deny you sixty+ points.

The argument about the "premium" of those LBTs...

At first glance, I thought that said something different, and was fairly confused...

It seems like we're stuck comparing apples to oranges here. These comparisons are in a vacuum where advantages are overblown and drawbacks ignored. Nothing against any poster's feelings, but anyone flying the Fat Han or similar is doing so at a premium. There are a lot of good things about the choice, but not without cost. First, it costs squadron points, more than half a list. Second, it limits the list composition to two good ships or [insert turret large ship here] and his escorts. Both of these features are drawbacks and should be taken into account.

I think this is rather dismissive. People are considering the drawbacks and doing so in full context, and always aware of the points. Balance discussions are ALWAYS in context of the cost - a TIE Advanced would be a KILLER ship if it only cost 6 points.

A Fat Turret is the most efficient use of points in the game. It's going to avoid a lot of shots, absorb a lot more, throw limited but consistent guns, ad provides a decision point halfway or so through the game where it's just going to become invincible. A 20 point split should be recoverable, but 60 points of Fat Han vs. 40 points of pretty much anything else and the game's over.

So yes, people are considering the costs. Yes, it's a lot of points - but those points are very well spent even in a flat 1:1 comparison, and they only get better when you put them in a real game situation.

I don't own a falcon I just can't get my hands on one locally or for a reasonable price online, but I do now have a fat decimator I've used and it's a beast lots of hit points and using expose fearsome firepower I killed a headhunter at range one with three hits and a crit it was awesome.

Now it does not move like a yt but it is in no way hard to manoeuvre, and even putting 63 points into one does not seem overly risky last game it killed leebo a b-wing and a headhunter, it lost hit points but even in a tournament had I lost it the three ties still alive means I'd come out well ahead on points.

I could easily see five games in a row against the decimator becoming super annoying.

Agree to disagree then.

It seems like we're stuck comparing apples to oranges here. These comparisons are in a vacuum where advantages are overblown and drawbacks ignored. Nothing against any poster's feelings, but anyone flying the Fat Han or similar is doing so at a premium. There are a lot of good things about the choice, but not without cost. First, it costs squadron points, more than half a list. Second, it limits the list composition to two good ships or [insert turret large ship here] and his escorts. Both of these features are drawbacks and should be taken into account.

In Vanor's estimation, it is true that a lot of individuals who play the game will follow what they've read as successful on a forum. It's equally true that world class players, like Paul Heaver, will fly certain ships because they deem them as a list with high potential.

Paul didn't win worlds because of his choice of Fat Han however. He won because he chose a squadron, practiced against multiple meta threats, and flew well when it mattered. Those three things in conjunction will work to make nearly any list a viable competitor. "Know thyself, know the enemy. One thousand battles, one thousand victories."

I will answer each paragraph:

- Every ship costs squadron points. We could say the same about putting a Z on your list.

- That's true, but i don't see what point are you trying to raise here. Yes, good players will find good lists, practice with them and be successful with them. How solid a list is will be tested by how much it does spread to local metas. People will play what a list that somebody won the worlds with, but if the list requires finesse, most of them will stop playing it because they are unable to make it function. Players will gravitate toward winning lists, but the ones they can somewhat make function.

- He won the worlds because he flied well, chose and practiced his list. You can't really argument that his tactics were the only thing that mattered, because list choice is darn important aswell.

And, i am sure everybody admits that you are paying a premium for a turret. What they seem to disagree with is "how much" is really worth that premium cost.

I am fairly certain that wave 5 will feature 2 ship lists as the meta star lists. Of course the problem isn't "large base turret ships are OP, nerfrdafaf".

- Arc dodging has gotten into ridiculous levels with the phantom, but it's only getting bigger (YT2400), this brings two things into the game, it allows those ships to play at very low numbers and succeed, and it forces to not play swarms because it is really risky to do so.

- Large turret can shoot arc dodgers every turn and now have the ability to arc dodge while retaining defensive and offensive options at the same time.

- Large turrets had gotten a lot of useful upgrades to play with (RC, Mara Jade, C3PO, Lone Wolf).

- Large turret ships and top arc dodgers will increase their power per upgrade in a non scalable manner. IE an engine upgrade costs the same to a 12 point base ship than to a 48 point ship. This helps towards the upgrade creep we see nowadays.

- Large base turret ships synergize really well with top arc dodgers.

- Agility has gotten into ridiculous levels. 4 dice + evade + focus, even for four hit points is something pretty hard to crack on, Corran with R2D2 + evade + focus means that you need to get atleast 2 damage through to start punching his hull points, same with a recon spec + lone wolf ship with 2 agility dice.

Z escorts will dissappear this wave, because they can't really damage the arc dodgers or PtL ships. If interceptors were already practically extinct, and defenders at really low numbers, stressimators will make them dissapear, any list featuring one center piece + cheap escorts is on a rough spot against them.

Of course, we will have the eventual 4 B's list winning, and people will lose their heads about the game isn't about large turret base ships right now.

By the way, i am completely neutral at this point, i gave up on trying funky stuff, and i am just practicing YT2400 and Decimator/phantom builds.

If all you're seeing are Falcons, I highly recommend you learn to fly a swarm. Swarms chew up Falcons for breakfast.

My personal record is killing a full health determination chewie in one turn with a howl + 6 tie swarm. It is really hunbling when it happens to you.

Giving up is good!

Phantoms wrecked the game.

They caused everyone to run to Fat Han builds in order to compete with them, plus they drain the fun out of every game they are in, making so many builds no longer viable to play.

Phantoms didn't ruin anything the human tendency towards laziness did, falcons are not the only option just the one that takes the least amount of effort, why fly well when you can take a turret ship and not worry about getting things in arc.

It's got four hit points and green dice can not be relied upon.

Phantoms didn't ruin anything the human tendency towards laziness did, falcons are not the only option just the one that takes the least amount of effort, why fly well when you can take a turret ship and not worry about getting things in arc.

It's got four hit points and green dice can not be relied upon.

Flying big ships takes skill.

Phantoms didn't ruin anything the human tendency towards laziness did, falcons are not the only option just the one that takes the least amount of effort, why fly well when you can take a turret ship and not worry about getting things in arc.

It's got four hit points and green dice can not be relied upon.

Flying big ships takes skill.

flying any ship with a 360 degree firing arc takes no skill. That being said it was about time the imperials got a 360 firing ship.

Really because i had zero experience with any turret ship never mind the decimator and have won several games now without losing it once, on average it kills two ships all by itself, last game it killed an outrider a b-wing and a z95 with no help from the tie escort.

It was really easy as a total novice to use a turret ship.