Second, this FAQ better come with a point reduction for all turrets or ships with turrets.

Leaving aside the debate over whether the game is broken or not, this misses the point. A lot of people feel that turrets are underpriced for the advantages they provide in the game. Reducing the cost effectiveness is the entire point.

If you disagree that they need fixed, that's fine, but if a fix has to include a cost break to keep the same cost effectiveness it would kind of defeat the point.

Leaving aside the debate over whether the game is broken or not, this misses the point.

No it doesn't.

I am of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with turrets in general, so if they are reduced in effectiveness, then they need to be reduced in price as well.

If someone feels turrets should be reduced in effectiveness, then they naturally need a price break to make up for the nerf.

You realize that part of the problem is just seeing the same lists over and over again?

That problem will be fixed if people start flying against those lists. If you keep playing scissors while you know the opponent is always playing rock, don't complain but throw some paper out there. Or Spock.

I know that it will eventually sort itself out, but it's a bit boring to sort through it all. The OP could just quit tournaments for a year and come back to them when it's sorted itself out.

Personally, I'm going with a Tie Bomber list....as soon as Santa brings me more Tie Bombers!

No need to take a break for a year... only 6 weeks *cough* autothruster *cough*

6 weeks.

hahahahahahaha

Also, off topic, but i don't think interceptors will make a comeback with the stressimators around.

Not crazy idea, but very hard to implement this late on the development phase of the game.

Ships with Turrets roll 1 less red die when attacking outside primary firing arc. Boom: game fixed.

I maybe do 1 or 2 tournaments a year, just in hopes of winning a nice alt-art card or something. I fully expect them to be cheese-fests and I don't consider them super-fun. Faction on faction really irks me too. I play in an X-wing league which is just for fun, and the meta is much more varied because theres nothing at stake. We also do scenarios and I play casual games with friends, thats where the fun is at.

I maybe do 1 or 2 tournaments a year, just in hopes of winning a nice alt-art card or something. I fully expect them to be cheese-fests and I don't consider them super-fun. Faction on faction really irks me too. I play in an X-wing league which is just for fun, and the meta is much more varied because theres nothing at stake. We also do scenarios and I play casual games with friends, thats where the fun is at.

I'm ... not sure what your point is?

Straight lines. Was trying to find a gif of the Falcon...

Ah, gotcha.

Well, again, that was limited by what motion control cameras could do in 1976 as opposed to 1979 or 1982.

Leaving aside the debate over whether the game is broken or not, this misses the point.

No it doesn't.

I am of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with turrets in general, so if they are reduced in effectiveness, then they need to be reduced in price as well.

If someone feels turrets should be reduced in effectiveness, then they naturally need a price break to make up for the nerf.

Yes, it actually does miss the point.

You're basically double dipping. You think the balance is fine, but if they ARE going to change the balance, you demand that the balance stay the same. If I said "They're fine and balanced, so they need to stay the same by raising the point cost" that would be exactly what you're doing here.

You think the balance is fine, but if they ARE going to change the balance, you demand that the balance stay the same.

Because I don't think the balance needs to change. So if they make it less effective they're changing the balance. So by putting in a point discount they've restored the balance to where it currently is. Because you are in fact paying for the power the turrets bring.

Which I agree is semi-pointless, which is the whole point, because the post I was quoting is based on the false premise that turrets need to be fixed.

If I said "They're fine and balanced, so they need to stay the same by raising the point cost" that would be exactly what you're doing here.

Not sure how you figure that...

In my post -effectiveness + -price = no change.

In this quote +price + Nothing = increased price without an increase in effectiveness. Those two are the same how?

Not sure how you figure that...

In my post -effectiveness + -price = no change.

In this quote +price + Nothing = increased price without an increase in effectiveness. Those two are the same how?

Because they're each doubling up on our own position while pretending to give ground on the first half of the equation.

Or, more properly, it's demanding that even if you lose on the first half (will there be a change at all), the implementation of the second half conforms to what you think should have happened on the first.

Because they're each doubling up on our own position while pretending to give ground on the first half of the equation.

I'm not really pretending. I'm saying that if such a thing were done it would make things unbalanced, and as such there would have to be something to offset that. If things are balanced, as I think they are, then clearly a reduction one one side needs a buff on the other to maintain balance. Which means a net change of 0...

I thought it was kind of clear based on my "it's not broken" statement that such a thing isn't needed, hence the comment. So again, no I didn't miss the point, I was showing why it was a bad idea in the first place.

Although there could be an argument made for making turrets less effective outside their arc being an overall improvement of the game, but yet still being bad balance wise, so you'd need a reduction in the points of turrets to offset the reduction in effectiveness.

But that ship sailed, both literally and figuratively with Wave 6 being on the boat and Autothrusters getting here soon. Because you can't put both a mod that gives a defense boost vs out of arc shots and double down by making out of arc shots worse, without practically destroying turrets.

Sorry - for a minute it seemed like there might have actually been a shadow of compromise in there, if only as a hypothetical "what if" discussion. I should have known better. I do have to give you points, though - "No, it doesn't need changing, but if they do change it they should make sure that nothing changes!" is an impressively consistent stance.

But that ship sailed, both literally and figuratively with Wave 6 being on the boat and Autothrusters getting here soon. Because you can't put both a mod that gives a defense boost vs out of arc shots and double down by making out of arc shots worse, without practically destroying turrets.

Not really. If turrets were fixed enough that they stopped being the massive advantage that they are, then ships wouldn't need Autothrusters to survive, and they wouldn't be worth the points, especially if they moved into a merely average rate of appearance. Would you take a 2-point upgrade that gave you the Autothrusters ability when being attacked by an X-wing or a TIE Bomber's missile? Or any missile? Pretty doubtful, because spending points on counters for something you're not going to see is a waste. If turrets would drop to the appearance rate of a Bomber or even the merely average X-wing, Autothrusters wouldn't be worth it, and it would be very unlikely to see them stacking with whatever neutering turrets got.

FWIW, I don't think gutting turrets is the right answer either. They've screwed up turrets at every opportunity, but it's far too late to fix them now. If they'll rein in the stupidity that is hypermobile turrets with stacked toughness boosters, we could probably get back to playing a dogfighting game even if the turrets are still as good as they are offensively. At the rate we're going, though, orbiting pancakes is looking to be the future, and won't that be fun.

if only as a hypothetical "what if" discussion.

I think the idea of giving turrets a -1 attack die outside their arc could've been an interesting thing to try. But since I think they're currently balanced ok, then yes you'd have to reduce the price or else you have damaged the overall balance of the game.

If you accept the premise that turrets are broken, then yes they need a reduction in effectiveness. I myself reject that premise, and so any reduction in effectiveness naturally needs to be offset with a buff of some other sort, like a decrease in price. I fail to see the confusion here, especially from you.

But yeah, prior to Autothrusters a general -1 attack dice when out of arc could of been interesting thing to try would of been a fairly subtle reduction in overall effectiveness, that would of required a new mindset when flying turreted ships.

Yet as I said the autothruster makes that a non-starter because you now have increased defense stacking with decreased firepower. There's no way you can balance that kind of stacking effect.

I should have known better.

Why, because I've never once changed my mind on something... In all the posts I've made here, especially on the rule boards I've never once changed my mind?

i had the thought the other day of having more specific tournament rules every now and then just to change it up, for example it would be really fun to get back t what the game was really meant to be which was dog fighting, the easiest way to put that into a tourney would be to ban large ships

now not permanently just once every now and then so people had to be flexible

you could have a variety of rules that you cycle through, such as no turrets so interceptors get more use or large ships only, or maybe every ship has to bring ordinance, no phantoms for once, only named pilots etc

may be you require them to use a specific ship such as the tie advanced just to add variety to the games

The possibility's are endless!

Anyway i would really like to see some variety in tournaments and simple requirements would be the easiest way to do it

It would just make the usage of the fatties a little more engaging and thought provoking since they, like everyone else, would actually have to predict where the enemy would end up.

Anyone who claims that Falcons don't have to worry about where the enemy ends up clearly has no idea what they're talking about. Turreted ships have to worry about where the enemy ends up just as much, if not more than a small ship. If you don't care and allow your opponent to keep you consistently in arc, you will lose. Badly. Only by arc-dodging and allowing yourself to be shot by as few ships as possible can you make up the massive firepower differential between any of the three big turrets and a small ship list.

Anyone who claims that Falcons don't have to worry about where the enemy ends up clearly has no idea what they're talking about. Turreted ships have to worry about where the enemy ends up just as much, if not more than a small ship. If you don't care and allow your opponent to keep you consistently in arc, you will lose. Badly. Only by arc-dodging and allowing yourself to be shot by as few ships as possible can you make up the massive firepower differential between any of the three big turrets and a small ship list.

Yeah, no.

All ships don't like getting shot at, but turreted ships are uniquely equipped to give the least of a **** since they are not penalized for moving defensively. The turret advantage married to how large bases maneuver (and, by extension, boost) makes it so much easier for them to arc-dodge while losing exactly none of their offensive effectiveness. This gives it so much more freedom to maneuver without worrying about whether or not they have a shot and, if they **** up, they still get to fire back anyway. Short of landing on an asteroid (or the outrider title), the turreted ship is never without a shot unless the opponent is without a shot (bumping).

Stacking these natural advantages on top of very meaty profiles bolstered by some powerful defensive tech and options for very high pilot skills (esp Han) make for the most forgiving ship type in the game, one that often moves last and moves furthest all without having to pay attention to its arc.

Now this is all balanced by rather hefty point costs and a strictly inferior amount of red dice relative to the same value of small ships, sure. Point is, I just find the turret advantage to be incredibly forgiving and incredibly dull, forcing the opponent to out-predict and corner the turreted ship while it goes on its merry way never having to worry about not having something to shoot at.

My opinion, and my opinion only, but I really don't think there's any problem with the turreted ships or Fat Han or Dash in particular. Yes, they seem to be the predominant list types that show up lately, but they're not at all overpowering. The fact is that Han still only throws 3 dice and Dash 4 with a pretty big hole..

Outmaneuver, Clusters, Homing Missiles and a bunch of other tactics and list archetypes chew right through these lists. I ran a 5 Z list with ordnance that obliterated Han in the 1st turn we were in firing range. Watching the look on your opponents face when you light him up with 5 Target locks knowing that 5 missiles are coming up his tailpipe is priceless. I don't care how well my opponent flies, when they have 22 red dice coming at them, they're going down pretty quickly.

If you accept the premise that turrets are broken, then yes they need a reduction in effectiveness. I myself reject that premise, and so any reduction in effectiveness naturally needs to be offset with a buff of some other sort, like a decrease in price. I fail to see the confusion here, especially from you.

The discussion of how to fix turrets is basically premised on the (at least hypothetical) acceptance of the idea that something needs to be done to fix them. Otherwise, the entire discussion is unnecessary. Coming into that and trying to push more "It's fine" is attempting to sabotage the discussion, and it's beneath you. Or at least it should be.

We get it, you don't think anything should need to change. If that's the case, you really have no business in a discussion over what a change should be, again short of just trying to sabotage the discussion.

Why, because I've never once changed my mind on something... In all the posts I've made here, especially on the rule boards I've never once changed my mind?

Might you change your mind theoretically at some point? Yeah, sure. But if you can look at the current state of the game we see and not think there's a problem, I have a hard time thinking of anything that'll convince you.

It has become a nearly-religious point around here that everything's fine. Any time anyone new rolls in with a concern - and it's always new people, because the rest of us know better - they're insulted, abused, and disparaged. The atmosphere and response is absolutely toxic. There's not a single piece of evidence that won't be explained away. Falcons dominate the Top 16/8 at Gencon? Well, it didn't win. Falcon wins at Worlds? Well, there was diversity in the Top 8. Turrets comprise 80% of the top points in the TC Open? Oh, it's just people trying something new. Person after person after person shows up here unhappy with what Fat Turrets are doing to their area, and they're just ragequitting whiners who aren't smart enough to deal with the incompetent netdeckers who are just copying the winning lists, but nobody's actually copying anything because someone changed one upgrade and it was brilliant!

<shrug> It wasn't meant as a personal attack, but there's enough evidence out there now to, I think, firmly establish where your line is for considering something unbalanced. Would you care to offer a (realistic) evaluation for what evidence you'd find convincing? Is there some number of turrets appearing in the Top 4/8/16 that will make you think they're out of whack? Some percentage of overall regional wins? Do we have to wait for next year's GenCon or Worlds? What would it take for you to think things need fixing?

My opinion, and my opinion only, but I really don't think there's any problem with the turreted ships or Fat Han or Dash in particular. Yes, they seem to be the predominant list types that show up lately, but they're not at all overpowering. The fact is that Han still only throws 3 dice and Dash 4 with a pretty big hole..

Outmaneuver, Clusters, Homing Missiles and a bunch of other tactics and list archetypes chew right through these lists. I ran a 5 Z list with ordnance that obliterated Han in the 1st turn we were in firing range. Watching the look on your opponents face when you light him up with 5 Target locks knowing that 5 missiles are coming up his tailpipe is priceless. I don't care how well my opponent flies, when they have 22 red dice coming at them, they're going down pretty quickly.

Good luck dealing with phantom builds tho, with a not really a swarm withouth 3 attack dice ships. The problem has never been building a specific list to beat common Fat Hans (even tho hard counters didn't exist, ordnance needs to TL beforehand, and your low ps is not going to do much, and i prefer to not get started with outmaneuver again), it always was dealing with both archetypes of lists. Swarms weren't good enough last wave for that, and double falcon or Fat Han withouth Gunner were actually more effective at it, which kinda is self defeating when it comes to removing falcons from your local meta.

Falcons are here to stay, so are turrets. If you're a casual player who just wants to get a few rounds and go home then continue to do so. If you don't like playing against falcons all the time then ask the person to maybe only run small ships.

If you're a competitive player and you like the competitive atmosphere and like going to gencon and worlds and all of that then suck it up and deal with it. It's just apart of the game and if ya don't like losing to them then either play that list or play something that counters it. X-wings and Hwk's are my 2 personal favorite ships but for store championships coming up I'm running a decimator with some ties and I'm known as the rebel guy, I rarely play imperials. Why the switch? Because I know the meta of that store and I know that it will do incredibly well.

If you're at a rock paper scissors tournament and you know the meta is rock heavy don't complain when you lose by bringing scissors. Either bring some paper or rock. If you're part of the crowd that is still unhappy and wants to get some games in and maybe win a card or some tokens then that's fine but don't whine about it when people bring power lists that are solely there to win. That's the competitive scene. If you're going there with the intention of winning then expect to see alot of falcons, decimators, and outriders at the top tables and have an answer for them.

If it's not for you then it's not for you. Again on casual nights I break out the lists that are filled with goofy synergy and pilots I like from the EU. Tournament day it's about bringing something that can handle the meta. If you think your casual night list can do it then please do because you might be on to something that someone hasn't thought of. But realize there is a reason why those turreted ships are being ran. The turreted ships have staying power. It's not about always having a shot. Turret ships are hard to kill in 60-75 minutes and that is a huge reason for why they are taken. High hit points and damage mitigation. You're not gonna 1-shot a falcon and falcon players know that. But you interceptor and Phantom players live and die by your green dice rolls. When you play a big ship the advantage is that blanking out your green dice isn't a catastrophe but when you roll 4 or 5 blanks with fel and whisper you know the game is pretty much over.

Falcons are here to stay, so are turrets. If you're a casual player who just wants to get a few rounds and go home then continue to do so. If you don't like playing against falcons all the time then ask the person to maybe only run small ships.

If you're a competitive player and you like the competitive atmosphere and like going to gencon and worlds and all of that then suck it up and deal with it. It's just apart of the game and if ya don't like losing to them then either play that list or play something that counters it. X-wings and Hwk's are my 2 personal favorite ships but for store championships coming up I'm running a decimator with some ties and I'm known as the rebel guy, I rarely play imperials. Why the switch? Because I know the meta of that store and I know that it will do incredibly well.

If you're at a rock paper scissors tournament and you know the meta is rock heavy don't complain when you lose by bringing scissors. Either bring some paper or rock. If you're part of the crowd that is still unhappy and wants to get some games in and maybe win a card or some tokens then that's fine but don't whine about it when people bring power lists that are solely there to win. That's the competitive scene. If you're going there with the intention of winning then expect to see alot of falcons, decimators, and outriders at the top tables and have an answer for them.

If it's not for you then it's not for you. Again on casual nights I break out the lists that are filled with goofy synergy and pilots I like from the EU. Tournament day it's about bringing something that can handle the meta. If you think your casual night list can do it then please do because you might be on to something that someone hasn't thought of. But realize there is a reason why those turreted ships are being ran. The turreted ships have staying power. It's not about always having a shot. Turret ships are hard to kill in 60-75 minutes and that is a huge reason for why they are taken. High hit points and damage mitigation. You're not gonna 1-shot a falcon and falcon players know that. But you interceptor and Phantom players live and die by your green dice rolls. When you play a big ship the advantage is that blanking out your green dice isn't a catastrophe but when you roll 4 or 5 blanks with fel and whisper you know the game is pretty much over.

This very true. I mean if a player doesn't like the state of the game, they should try to find or set an environment they do enjoy or move on. Of course, the latter is actually bad for everyone that likes X-Wing, and the designers obviously see an issue with that since we have autothrusters coming out in the next release.

The health of the game is important and while it is very hard to achieve perfection, it should be cause for concern when a particular ship is seen as frequently as it is or isn't seen much at all. Writing it off as "part of competition" is a very simple excuse and it should be concerning for all of us who enjoy the game for whatever reason because of the consequences of people leaving.

I actually think you hit the real issue on the head regarding 60-75 minute tournaments. A very simply fix that can be made without introducing a new card is to alter the tournament rules to a point where large base ships award fractions of their points for damage at a particular threshold; for example, if a large base ship is below half, awarding half the points.

The biggest and winningest tourney and vassal champions dont spend an iota of time debating on how broken turret ships are.

What does that tell you?

Lots of peeps on this s8te seem to have more knowledge about game balance than the best players or the designers themselves. Lol.

The biggest and winningest tourney and vassal champions dont spend an iota of time debating on how broken turret ships are.

What does that tell you?

I like the irony here.