So, if the turret problem emerged after wave 4 hit (which happened well after the Falcon arrived), can it be said that the Falcon is actually the problem? Or is it a result of the TIE Phantom Menace?

Two things led to Fat Turrets: C-3PO and Z-95s. 3PO (and now R2, as Paul has shown) was a tipping point in the ability to stack defensively-minded upgrades onto a turreted ship, allowing it to maximize the turret's capability to not worry about pointing at targets. It also created an inflection point where a game will tip towards un-damageable Falcons. Z-95s allowed more points to be dumped into the Falcons to gain that, while actually increasing the efficiency of the support ships around it.

I'm astonished that we have to keep having this "Han was always around and lost so nothing changed!" discussion. Yes, turrets changed in Wave 3.5/4. No, it had nothing to do with Phantoms. Yes, Fat Falcons are a solid answer to Phantoms. No, they are not useless in a non-Phantom environment.

Everything has an action. When the Phantom came out it was more maneuverable and had better firepower than interceptors. Sure it cost more but the points was well worth the benefit so what if you only had 1 instead of 2 or 3.

The falcon which was strong in wave 2 but not so much in wave 3 due to all the high health low agility ships out there like B-wings and of course the dreaded Tie Swarm which at the time remained king didn't make it appearance as often but when the phantom came out they started showing up all over the place.

With Wave 5 the rebels already had turreted ships and ships with turret upgrades so now it was time to give the Imperials their own turreted weapons. However they did not want to copy another falcon so they all made a different ship. The Decimator which has allot of health but zero damage reduction and take ups half the squadron with only 3 firepower and the YT-2400 which has the heaviest firepower with Outrider + HLC and the most ability but is the weakest of the 3 ships in regards to hit points.

So with the turrets there is an idea of counter balance, the new ships are good but must have a draw back some how a weakness that can be exploited by other ships. Autothrusters will pull some power from ships that have turrets and give it to ships that start with boost but it will do nothing against Tie Swarms.

So instead of the rock<paper<scissors you now have a more diverse list you can choose your strength but also choose what is your weakness. If you want turrets you are spoiled for choice you have Fat Han which used to fall to swarms and you have Outrider Dash which falls to Phantoms. If you want arc dodging you can have Whisper which takes out swarms but not so good against big turret ships (with the exception of Dash) or soon you can have the new and improved TIE interceptors with Autothrusters which will help it against Fat Han but will fail against the swarm.

I created this thread to talk about the FUTURE of turrets but, just for fun, if I were to do a thought experiment re-design of how turrets worked I would have given the YT-1300 the ORS stat line across the board and taken away the turret primary weapon and given it a turret upgrade. Then have a Millenium falcon title that granted extra shields and hull to represent han's upgrades. Then have the Gunner card read: "You may make primary weapon attacks outside of your firing arc, this card can only be equipped by ships with the (turret upgrade symbol)"

Basically have gunner represent a manned turret (hence it is a crew card) and the blaster turret would represent an un manned turret (hence it requires the pilots focus to aim and has restricted range)

From there you can pretty much extrapolate it to the other turreted ships.

This would not be a good idea. some bounty hunters need the gunner to be effective, especially Kath.

This sounds appropriate fair and dynamic. Can it rotate 180 or just 90? Also when you fly a turret in battlefront 2. That IS what it feels like.

Funny enough though the game currently balanced for current turret rules. If this rule were placed I would have to ask also for a reduction in price for turret ships. Which still makes me happy. More variety and more ships on the board.

I'd personally say 90 (adcajent firing arc) so that even high PS pilots would essentially have a 90 degree blind-spot forcing players to exercise just a bit of forethought. It's not much, but it would literally be infinitely more than what they currently have.

How does that balance against ps9 or ps11 han? He will still most likely be moving last anways.

Fat han is its own problem that goes well beyond just the horridness of the turret rules

Correct me if I'm wrong but the mangler outrider can still take a Gunner no?

Turret primary weapons are fine and I know that they will be a part of the game going forward, I just hope we don't get any more 3 attack dice primaries without any drawbacks (beyond the cost of the ships carrying them)

"I don't like Falcons and Decimators, please nerf!"

You don't want to discuss the future of turrets, you want ways to make at least genuine turret weapons worse than they are.

I like that they bring out Autothrusters now, and that if you want an advantage against turret lists you should pay 2 points for them. You say that there is no drawback but the price. Well that's a huge drawback. We are talking about usually one ship per list, costing about 50-65 points. well it should better be good then!

Also it's not the turrets, it's C3PO and Ysanne that make a huge difference too.

I think that when Autothrusters come they will make Interceptors and the like a bad matchup for Falcons and Decimators, an unwinnable one for turreted Y-Wings and such. That's absolutely okay though, because there are still enough okay and good matchups for Turret ships. How many native boost ships do we have? 4 i believe.

Autothrusters do resolve the problem for the ships most afraid of turrets with gunners, especially for interceptors. Nothing more needed as a turret nerf really. But they have to commit to equip Autothrusters, which is good. In every game it's a lottery if you take the right setup, moreso on tournaments even. If you expect a lot of turrets you take them, if not, you don't. Same thing basically as with VI. Expect Phantoms -> take them on your 8 and 9 PS ships.

Can I just say something here about C-3PO? His overpowered-ness is PERCEIVED! Yes, he can save 1 damage per turn, and yes, you could sort of call it '1 guaranteed evade' but there are plenty of rounds where he guesses 0 evades and rolls an evade, hence C-3PO has failed. The problem isn't C-3PO. The problem is that people fly the Falcon in such a way to take advantage of C-3PO and limit incoming attacks courtesy of Engine Upgrade. And if you ask me, that's not a problem - that's clever squad construction and maneuvering. Yes, I hate it when my TIE interceptors get destroyed by turrets. I also hate when they get Darth Vadered, as mentioned earlier this tread, but I'm not about to cry OP over it. If new ways to maneuver the Falcon can make C-3PO sing, then new ways of maneuvering interceptors (or asteroid placement, or the proper support craft) should be able to counter. Now, obviously the designers felt TIE interceptors needed help, so they threw them a bone (or, will throw them a bone, I guess) in the form of Autothrusters. I'll take it!

As to the future of turrets, I think the Outrider has shown that the designers can be clever with turret design, and the range 1 Dash donut goes to show that maneuvering is still as important as ever. I think that turrets have a healthy future in this game, and we will probably see more in the future. I'm speculating here, but I'm willing to bet that with all the complaints on these forums we're likely to see them back off from ships that can shoot primary weapons outside their firing arcs for a bit in future waves.

Thing is, an arc dodging ship which can always get you in arc no matter how you move is just the same as a turreted ship. Sure, you could block both or cause other problems to one or the other but the result is much the same. At least you can usually shoot back at a turret.

Thing is, an arc dodging ship which can always get you in arc no matter how you move is just the same as a turreted ship. Sure, you could block both or cause other problems to one or the other but the result is much the same. At least you can usually shoot back at a turret.

Sorry, but these aren't the same thing at all. First, it's not accurate. Even if an arc dodging ship can get often in your arc via boost or barrel roll the it is using an action to do so, not an insignificant drawback that a turret doesn't that've to worry about.

Thing is, an arc dodging ship which can always get you in arc no matter how you move is just the same as a turreted ship. Sure, you could block both or cause other problems to one or the other but the result is much the same. At least you can usually shoot back at a turret.

This is incorrect, as Alex already alluded to

An arc-dodging ship might be able to keep up with a large base using EU, sure, but they simply cannot replicate the 360 coverage of a turret. Nothing in the game can (well, Nera if you want to get anal).

More specifically, no arc-dodging ship apart from echo can easily fire at targets positioned behind it without a k-turn (generally suicidal on arc-dodgers that live or die by their actions). Arc-dodging ships also actually have to worry about their facing, since their arcs limit where they can shoot and therefore greatly limits how they can maneuver while still having a shot. Turrets, on the other hand, can go where-ever the hell they please and re-orientate with a boost in any direction of their choosing since their facing is of absolutely no concern to them when it comes to lining up shots.

There's also the added weaknesses of their fragility, stress, ionization, obstacles all of which the turret either doesn't have to worry about or is very lightly punished for thanks in part to the 360 degree of fire and in part to a plethora of action-independent upgrades.

There need to be a sub forum for turret whine.

So, if the turret problem emerged after wave 4 hit (which happened well after the Falcon arrived), can it be said that the Falcon is actually the problem? Or is it a result of the TIE Phantom Menace?

Two things led to Fat Turrets: C-3PO and Z-95s. 3PO (and now R2, as Paul has shown) was a tipping point in the ability to stack defensively-minded upgrades onto a turreted ship, allowing it to maximize the turret's capability to not worry about pointing at targets. It also created an inflection point where a game will tip towards un-damageable Falcons. Z-95s allowed more points to be dumped into the Falcons to gain that, while actually increasing the efficiency of the support ships around it.

I'm astonished that we have to keep having this "Han was always around and lost so nothing changed!" discussion. Yes, turrets changed in Wave 3.5/4. No, it had nothing to do with Phantoms. Yes, Fat Falcons are a solid answer to Phantoms. No, they are not useless in a non-Phantom environment.

I have played an the old school Tie Swarm vs the Fat Han w/ support ship list many times. It was always a crushing defeat for the falcon. Sure that first shot from howl runner was very ineffective as Han would just deflect all the hits. After that, 6 more shots would see damage cards stacking up. Often the next round of firing would result in a dead falcon or leave Han hanging on a thread. You can't blame the Falcone and its turret for it's dominance in the meta lately. Where did all the swarms go, they were the answer that kept the YT-1300 in check. In fact the first 3 years the Tie Swarm kept everything in check until a firm answer stop that squad in it's track. And what was the ship..........The Tie Phantom! The more people pulled out this wave 4 ship the less Tie Swarms wee played. This lifted the weight of the Falcone and allowed it to rise.

So really a lesson in compedative meta gaming is really needed. Most healthy games have a paper, rock, scissors style of system. Unlike the real PRS one does not win at 100% over the other it's often 60-90%. Here we will assign these builds so we can see the affect

Paper: Fat Falcone

Rock: Tie Phantom

Scissor: Tie Swarm

Let's Say Paper really only beats rock 60-70% of the time. There is enough hope in the 40% left for Rock to keep trying and hence stick around in meta. Rock beats Scissor 80-90% and kills it off in the meta and leaves no answer to the Paper as a hard counter because of the strength of Rock not the strength of Paper.

The thing I would do is:

Turrets primary weapon and Yt-2400 with outrider tittle, can´t use focus, markmanship or repeat dice when attacking outside firing arc... unless the ship has a gunner. So you have to spend 5 points in a gunner to make the attack better outside the firing arc, only ONE attack, changing obviously the role of the gunner.

I consider extremely unfair the situation right now, I falcon shot at your interceptor/awing with focus and evade token, normaly forcing you to spend at least one of them in the attack (or both) and the the gunner shoot at you with no tokens, and damage seriously your ship.

With the thing I say, there won´t be need of Autothrusters and I think the game would be more balanced

It would be cool to have a 3-5 turret on a fighter. It would work as a sniper, but it wouldnt spoil the dogfights in the game because the ship will be very vulnerable at close range.

Imagine a K-Wing that has a 3-5 turret and no other attack method besides missiles and torpedoes. That would be a very interesting support ship. Very useful but vulnerable.

So, if the turret problem emerged after wave 4 hit (which happened well after the Falcon arrived), can it be said that the Falcon is actually the problem? Or is it a result of the TIE Phantom Menace?

Two things led to Fat Turrets: C-3PO and Z-95s. 3PO (and now R2, as Paul has shown) was a tipping point in the ability to stack defensively-minded upgrades onto a turreted ship, allowing it to maximize the turret's capability to not worry about pointing at targets. It also created an inflection point where a game will tip towards un-damageable Falcons. Z-95s allowed more points to be dumped into the Falcons to gain that, while actually increasing the efficiency of the support ships around it.

I'm astonished that we have to keep having this "Han was always around and lost so nothing changed!" discussion. Yes, turrets changed in Wave 3.5/4. No, it had nothing to do with Phantoms. Yes, Fat Falcons are a solid answer to Phantoms. No, they are not useless in a non-Phantom environment.

I have played an the old school Tie Swarm vs the Fat Han w/ support ship list many times. It was always a crushing defeat for the falcon. Sure that first shot from howl runner was very ineffective as Han would just deflect all the hits. After that, 6 more shots would see damage cards stacking up. Often the next round of firing would result in a dead falcon or leave Han hanging on a thread. You can't blame the Falcone and its turret for it's dominance in the meta lately. Where did all the swarms go, they were the answer that kept the YT-1300 in check. In fact the first 3 years the Tie Swarm kept everything in check until a firm answer stop that squad in it's track. And what was the ship..........The Tie Phantom! The more people pulled out this wave 4 ship the less Tie Swarms wee played. This lifted the weight of the Falcone and allowed it to rise.

So really a lesson in compedative meta gaming is really needed. Most healthy games have a paper, rock, scissors style of system. Unlike the real PRS one does not win at 100% over the other it's often 60-90%. Here we will assign these builds so we can see the affect

Paper: Fat Falcone

Rock: Tie Phantom

Scissor: Tie Swarm

Let's Say Paper really only beats rock 60-70% of the time. There is enough hope in the 40% left for Rock to keep trying and hence stick around in meta. Rock beats Scissor 80-90% and kills it off in the meta and leaves no answer to the Paper as a hard counter because of the strength of Rock not the strength of Paper.

I'm glad you've had success against Fat Han with swarms, but I'm not sure that good falcon players allow that many shots. I've seen (including at Worlds) good Falcon players dismantle good swarm players by arc dodging enough of the shots to avoid heavy damage in a single round. It's not simply the rise of the phantom that has helped falcons. It's not just 3PO either, but I think even if the phantom hadn't been released, or it disappears (which it won't) you'd see the Falcon as the dominant ship right now because there are other cards that have really helped it out, too.

So, if the turret problem emerged after wave 4 hit (which happened well after the Falcon arrived), can it be said that the Falcon is actually the problem? Or is it a result of the TIE Phantom Menace?

Two things led to Fat Turrets: C-3PO and Z-95s. 3PO (and now R2, as Paul has shown) was a tipping point in the ability to stack defensively-minded upgrades onto a turreted ship, allowing it to maximize the turret's capability to not worry about pointing at targets. It also created an inflection point where a game will tip towards un-damageable Falcons. Z-95s allowed more points to be dumped into the Falcons to gain that, while actually increasing the efficiency of the support ships around it.

I'm astonished that we have to keep having this "Han was always around and lost so nothing changed!" discussion. Yes, turrets changed in Wave 3.5/4. No, it had nothing to do with Phantoms. Yes, Fat Falcons are a solid answer to Phantoms. No, they are not useless in a non-Phantom environment.

I do think that C-3PO and the Z-95 are plausible factors for the rise of the Fat Han (as opposed to the Han Shoots First list). That's a credible theory of causation. However, how do you support your claim that it has nothing to do with the Phantom? Just saying that they're not useless in a non-Phantom environment is not particularly convincing. Are you just arguing about the transition from the HSF to the FH? What are the definitions of each?

Osoroshii makes a solid point that not only was the Fat Han a great answer to the Phantom, but the Phantom was also a deterrent to the TIE Swarm, which remains a solid opponent to the Fat Han. So, if the prevalence of the TIE Swarm diminished because of the Phantom, then that could well explain what gave the Fat Han a more survivable ecosystem.

Just regarding Fat Han, by the way, while I always play Imperial, and I frequently get arc-dodged by a Fat Han, there's just something awesome about having that big Falcon dodging its way between my TIEs. It's just sooo thematic.

For future turrets, something has to emerge as truly detrimental to turret weapons and somewhat competitive to other popular builds. Since we have the turrets we can imagine, it would seem that another way to combat this would be to put some penalty on those turret ships (which happen to all be large based).

I know that Ion weapons are currently "out of style", and it would surely weaken other large based ships - what if ALL ships were ionized with only 1 ion token? I have not tested this at all, just spitballing ideas.

Combating future turrets also may be something like a weapon modification to small based ships to allow them to shoot at range 4. I have no idea what the costing would look like for this though, and have not tested this either.

I do really like the range 3-5 turret idea above as well! I could see this fitting into the scum mold - using all available resources of a ship to fit/fire a stolen long range cannon. Good ideas in this thread!

So, if the turret problem emerged after wave 4 hit (which happened well after the Falcon arrived), can it be said that the Falcon is actually the problem? Or is it a result of the TIE Phantom Menace?

Two things led to Fat Turrets: C-3PO and Z-95s. 3PO (and now R2, as Paul has shown) was a tipping point in the ability to stack defensively-minded upgrades onto a turreted ship, allowing it to maximize the turret's capability to not worry about pointing at targets. It also created an inflection point where a game will tip towards un-damageable Falcons. Z-95s allowed more points to be dumped into the Falcons to gain that, while actually increasing the efficiency of the support ships around it.

I'm astonished that we have to keep having this "Han was always around and lost so nothing changed!" discussion. Yes, turrets changed in Wave 3.5/4. No, it had nothing to do with Phantoms. Yes, Fat Falcons are a solid answer to Phantoms. No, they are not useless in a non-Phantom environment.

I do think that C-3PO and the Z-95 are plausible factors for the rise of the Fat Han (as opposed to the Han Shoots First list). That's a credible theory of causation. However, how do you support your claim that it has nothing to do with the Phantom? Just saying that they're not useless in a non-Phantom environment is not particularly convincing. Are you just arguing about the transition from the HSF to the FH? What are the definitions of each?

Besides 3PO, the Z-95, and R2D2, one card that people forget about is Predator, also released in Wave 4. Predator, especially on a Falcon is a boon against swarms, allowing an offensive reroll and limiting the drawback of being blocked. It also gave gunner some new life since you then have a modified roll attached to that.

I think it's fair to say that the Phantom has basically forced people to pick their poison (it's tough to make a list that is not extremely vulnerable to one or the other), but I think it's a mistake to point to the phantom's impact on the meta as the main reason for the Falcon's current strength as it really ignores the cards above.

I see Artoo's usage more being a meta call. You bring him when you expect to face other Falcons.

For future turrets, something has to emerge as truly detrimental to turret weapons and somewhat competitive to other popular builds. Since we have the turrets we can imagine, it would seem that another way to combat this would be to put some penalty on those turret ships (which happen to all be large based).

I know that Ion weapons are currently "out of style", and it would surely weaken other large based ships - what if ALL ships were ionized with only 1 ion token? I have not tested this at all, just spitballing ideas.

Combating future turrets also may be something like a weapon modification to small based ships to allow them to shoot at range 4. I have no idea what the costing would look like for this though, and have not tested this either.

I do really like the range 3-5 turret idea above as well! I could see this fitting into the scum mold - using all available resources of a ship to fit/fire a stolen long range cannon. Good ideas in this thread!

There is an elegant solution that helps bring other builds up but does not push another down. One Ion for large to get them.

To move (no pun intended) turreted ship play, and the game in-general, back to a focus on maneuvering, I think there should be a FAQ update or something to make the range 1 damage bonus only apply to ships in firing arc. This would 1) incentivize turreted ships to keep the primary target in arc and 2) make it a bit more difficult for these ships to counter typically high-agility but low-health arc dodgers, like the Interceptor.

Solid idea. No need to errata any cards.

So, if the turret problem emerged after wave 4 hit (which happened well after the Falcon arrived), can it be said that the Falcon is actually the problem? Or is it a result of the TIE Phantom Menace?

Two things led to Fat Turrets: C-3PO and Z-95s. 3PO (and now R2, as Paul has shown) was a tipping point in the ability to stack defensively-minded upgrades onto a turreted ship, allowing it to maximize the turret's capability to not worry about pointing at targets. It also created an inflection point where a game will tip towards un-damageable Falcons. Z-95s allowed more points to be dumped into the Falcons to gain that, while actually increasing the efficiency of the support ships around it.

I'm astonished that we have to keep having this "Han was always around and lost so nothing changed!" discussion. Yes, turrets changed in Wave 3.5/4. No, it had nothing to do with Phantoms. Yes, Fat Falcons are a solid answer to Phantoms. No, they are not useless in a non-Phantom environment.

I do think that C-3PO and the Z-95 are plausible factors for the rise of the Fat Han (as opposed to the Han Shoots First list). That's a credible theory of causation. However, how do you support your claim that it has nothing to do with the Phantom? Just saying that they're not useless in a non-Phantom environment is not particularly convincing. Are you just arguing about the transition from the HSF to the FH? What are the definitions of each?

Besides 3PO, the Z-95, and R2D2, one card that people forget about is Predator, also released in Wave 4. Predator, especially on a Falcon is a boon against swarms, allowing an offensive reroll and limiting the drawback of being blocked. It also gave gunner some new life since you then have a modified roll attached to that.

I think it's fair to say that the Phantom has basically forced people to pick their poison (it's tough to make a list that is not extremely vulnerable to one or the other), but I think it's a mistake to point to the phantom's impact on the meta as the main reason for the Falcon's current strength as it really ignores the cards above.

The problem ensues when you play Decimator/Phantom. I find that the top list at the moment. The Phantom at 37-39 points hits way above its weight class and just can not be ignored. But you are forced to deal with the Decimator too, and good players will know how to do a huge lot of damage before a Decimator goes down. Either you loose too much to kill the decimator with Ysard and maybe captive, or you lose the ships being capable of dealing with the phantom.

An all Turret list is not really viable. Jan/Han might be the only one coming close to that.

There is nothing wrong with turrets as far as i see. They cost a lot of points snd they should be as good as they are really. Autothrusters will give is a huge counter to them anyway, so why are you talking about reducing range 1 shots, ioning huge ships with 1 hit an all that crap. How would that be helpful. It would just render every large ship totally useless beside the IG-2000 who could evade sometimes. But why would you do this? Why can't turreted ships be part of the top meta? I see no reason for that as they cost massive amounts of points and you really commit to something like a 2 or 3-ship while taking one (unless you fly with miniswarm) where is your problem if a 60 point ship actually can kill stuff for 60 points.

You have heard it. Soontir can now 1v1 Han with Autothrusters. He costs some 32-35 points, han or a deci cost nearly double that. So what do you want??!

There need to be a sub forum for turret whine.

Quiet my clone.

So, if the turret problem emerged after wave 4 hit (which happened well after the Falcon arrived), can it be said that the Falcon is actually the problem? Or is it a result of the TIE Phantom Menace?

Two things led to Fat Turrets: C-3PO and Z-95s. 3PO (and now R2, as Paul has shown) was a tipping point in the ability to stack defensively-minded upgrades onto a turreted ship, allowing it to maximize the turret's capability to not worry about pointing at targets. It also created an inflection point where a game will tip towards un-damageable Falcons. Z-95s allowed more points to be dumped into the Falcons to gain that, while actually increasing the efficiency of the support ships around it.

I'm astonished that we have to keep having this "Han was always around and lost so nothing changed!" discussion. Yes, turrets changed in Wave 3.5/4. No, it had nothing to do with Phantoms. Yes, Fat Falcons are a solid answer to Phantoms. No, they are not useless in a non-Phantom environment.

I do think that C-3PO and the Z-95 are plausible factors for the rise of the Fat Han (as opposed to the Han Shoots First list). That's a credible theory of causation. However, how do you support your claim that it has nothing to do with the Phantom? Just saying that they're not useless in a non-Phantom environment is not particularly convincing. Are you just arguing about the transition from the HSF to the FH? What are the definitions of each?

Besides 3PO, the Z-95, and R2D2, one card that people forget about is Predator, also released in Wave 4. Predator, especially on a Falcon is a boon against swarms, allowing an offensive reroll and limiting the drawback of being blocked. It also gave gunner some new life since you then have a modified roll attached to that.

I think it's fair to say that the Phantom has basically forced people to pick their poison (it's tough to make a list that is not extremely vulnerable to one or the other), but I think it's a mistake to point to the phantom's impact on the meta as the main reason for the Falcon's current strength as it really ignores the cards above.

But it is... Huge ship lists still lose to Tie swarms and maximum ship Rebel builds pretty hard. If you fly them well. You can't mess up your approach like before but still win and you have to set up blocks too. But Swarms still win against Falcons and Decimators pretty hard. Dash is a bit different.

The problem ensues when you play Decimator/Phantom. I find that the top list at the moment. The Phantom at 37-39 points hits way above its weight class and just can not be ignored. But you are forced to deal with the Decimator too, and good players will know how to do a huge lot of damage before a Decimator goes down. Either you loose too much to kill the decimator with Ysard and maybe captive, or you lose the ships being capable of dealing with the phantom.

An all Turret list is not really viable. Jan/Han might be the only one coming close to that.

There is nothing wrong with turrets as far as i see. They cost a lot of points snd they should be as good as they are really. Autothrusters will give is a huge counter to them anyway, so why are you talking about reducing range 1 shots, ioning huge ships with 1 hit an all that crap. How would that be helpful. It would just render every large ship totally useless beside the IG-2000 who could evade sometimes. But why would you do this? Why can't turreted ships be part of the top meta? I see no reason for that as they cost massive amounts of points and you really commit to something like a 2 or 3-ship while taking one (unless you fly with miniswarm) where is your problem if a 60 point ship actually can kill stuff for 60 points.

You have heard it. Soontir can now 1v1 Han with Autothrusters. He costs some 32-35 points, han or a deci cost nearly double that. So what do you want??!

All of these threads clearly want the same thing, auto wins. Doesn't matter that turrets can be, and are beaten regularly. Doesn't matter when they are told what tactics to use, or ideas to try out. In their collective 'mind' all that matters is they lose on the regs to turrets, and it can't be their play or anything - they're too good for that. So it must be that turrets are OP and are going to destroy the game. I love auto thrusters, and will play the hell out of them, but I can already hear the cries of 'every single attack?' and 'free evade' and every other rallying cry for the scrub. Sorry folks, in this game, cards do stuff.

So, if the turret problem emerged after wave 4 hit (which happened well after the Falcon arrived), can it be said that the Falcon is actually the problem? Or is it a result of the TIE Phantom Menace?

Two things led to Fat Turrets: C-3PO and Z-95s. 3PO (and now R2, as Paul has shown) was a tipping point in the ability to stack defensively-minded upgrades onto a turreted ship, allowing it to maximize the turret's capability to not worry about pointing at targets. It also created an inflection point where a game will tip towards un-damageable Falcons. Z-95s allowed more points to be dumped into the Falcons to gain that, while actually increasing the efficiency of the support ships around it.

I'm astonished that we have to keep having this "Han was always around and lost so nothing changed!" discussion. Yes, turrets changed in Wave 3.5/4. No, it had nothing to do with Phantoms. Yes, Fat Falcons are a solid answer to Phantoms. No, they are not useless in a non-Phantom environment.

I do think that C-3PO and the Z-95 are plausible factors for the rise of the Fat Han (as opposed to the Han Shoots First list). That's a credible theory of causation. However, how do you support your claim that it has nothing to do with the Phantom? Just saying that they're not useless in a non-Phantom environment is not particularly convincing. Are you just arguing about the transition from the HSF to the FH? What are the definitions of each?

Besides 3PO, the Z-95, and R2D2, one card that people forget about is Predator, also released in Wave 4. Predator, especially on a Falcon is a boon against swarms, allowing an offensive reroll and limiting the drawback of being blocked. It also gave gunner some new life since you then have a modified roll attached to that.

I think it's fair to say that the Phantom has basically forced people to pick their poison (it's tough to make a list that is not extremely vulnerable to one or the other), but I think it's a mistake to point to the phantom's impact on the meta as the main reason for the Falcon's current strength as it really ignores the cards above.

While Predator is important for Decimators and Chewbacca/Lando(if anyone uses Lando in a Fat Falcon), Han always had something like Predator built in so it isn't a big deal for those builds (in my opinion).

All of these threads clearly want the same thing, auto wins. Doesn't matter that turrets can be, and are beaten regularly. Doesn't matter when they are told what tactics to use, or ideas to try out. In their collective 'mind' all that matters is they lose on the regs to turrets, and it can't be their play or anything - they're too good for that. So it must be that turrets are OP and are going to destroy the game. I love auto thrusters, and will play the hell out of them, but I can already hear the cries of 'every single attack?' and 'free evade' and every other rallying cry for the scrub. Sorry folks, in this game, cards do stuff.

I'm confident that this was not at all the OP's intention, anyone else's intention. The accusation gets us nowhere, and there's no point going down that rabbit hole.

So, let's get the thread back on track:

I don't think there's any point in talking about what cards should be repriced or eliminated. Also, what you do in your house rules is your own business. I don't think the rest of us have any use for them.

I do hope that we've seen the last of new turrets outside of what S&V might get, which would only be fair. Like the OP, I don't think turrets OP, but I agree with the OP that main part of this game should be about managing firing arcs. I also don't think that the OP is OP.

Anything else?

Oh, right...

Besides 3PO, the Z-95, and R2D2, one card that people forget about is Predator, also released in Wave 4. Predator, especially on a Falcon is a boon against swarms, allowing an offensive reroll and limiting the drawback of being blocked. It also gave gunner some new life since you then have a modified roll attached to that.

I agree that Predator is a very powerful card, but if people forget about it, then it's probably not such a significant feature in the meta.