To get back to the OP's original comments...

... which premise I heartily disagree with...

(... but, none the less respect...)

1. I thought that this game was specifically based on the SW universe, in particular the OT,..

... NOT on necessarily on "clever maneuvering" to get opponents into you firing arc, while avoiding theirs

(though I accept that that is an important aspect of the came)

2. Turrets do feature in many ship designs in the SW universe (as admitted to in OP)

3. Lucas based his space combat scenes on footage of WWII aerial combat.

4. Were this a WWII aerial combat game, nobody would even be contemplating complaining about the existence of turrets, whether they were "over powered" or what the game publishers should do to "bring back the importance of maneuver" to the game, etc...

As a mostly "historical" gamer, with decades of experience with numerous game systems/genres, I just don't "get" half the whining/complaints/concerns of a lot of posters on this forum. I think it all comes down to perspective and expectations on what the game IS, what it SHOULD BE and WHERE IT IS GOING.

That said, I really do respect the opinions expressed (without necessarily agreeing with them) and enjoy reading this forum and contributing (in some small measure) in the discussions.

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?

What if having an ion token on your ship restricted your ability to fire outside of your arc until it was cleared? Maybe allow ships that have an ion token to forfeit their perform action step to clear it. It wouldn't be an action, so you couldn't trigger PTL or EI with it. That would mean that large base ships could stave off being ionized by a single cannon or turret forever but it would cost them their actions each turn. The downsides I see to this is that it would make high PS an even bigger benefit and might be a bit too rough on small base turrets. Maybe have the token check happen at the start of the combat phase? I'd worry about making anything too clunky.

Total spitballing out of nowhere:

Buff Ion like so: Any ship that has at least one Ion token cannot fire its turret weapon(s) except from a printed arc.

Total spitballing out of nowhere:

Buff Ion like so: Any ship that has at least one Ion token cannot fire its turret weapon(s) except from a printed arc.

So one ion hit will turn off a turret and if you never fire the ion again the turret never comes back on. Yup! That's a balanced fix *sarcasm*

Total spitballing out of nowhere:

Buff Ion like so: Any ship that has at least one Ion token cannot fire its turret weapon(s) except from a printed arc.

And by "out of nowhere" you mean "the post right above me"?

I agree with Osoroshii - without a way to clear ion tokens that would be seriously unbalanced.

Then just change it so you always get rid of ion tokens when you move the next turn. Bigger ships should have better engine redundancies lore wise, (yeah i went there) so you could reason it as you need a bigger "jolt" (2 ions in a round) to actually keep them from maneuvering.

Add this line:

At the beginning of the Planning phase, Large ships with a single Ion token may choose to trigger the Ion effect. Do not prepair a maneuver dial for that ship, instead moving it at a White 1 Straight and removing the Ion token, as normal.

Obviously any wording should be reworked for flow, clarity, and consistency.

Problem is, if you make Ion work in a single shot vs large ships, then Ion and Tactician becomes an easy counter to a 45+pt ship for relatively little investment.

Just wait until they make a twin turret ship

I think that a lot of this is turret OP talk comes from a pretty special mindset.

There are players that think flying small ships, usually imperial and especially Interceptors or Phantoms is requiring more skill than flying turreted ships, and that therefore view themselves as Baron Fel's chosen elite of some sort.

Well sorry to disappoint you. It requires just as much skill to bring a well flown Falcon, Decimator or Dash to the table than to fly a Phantom or Interceptor, sometimes even more. If both players are bad, i agree that mostly the turret ship is more forgiving. But if both players are worth their salt, you can see extrordinary maneuvering from large turret ship pilots.

Look at Worlds for example. Heaver won because he outflew and outguessed his opponent... With a Turreted ship! He won because he was more skilled more than anything else.

Or look at this batrep with Morgan Reid flying a Decimator/Whisper. Excellent flying again that wins it for him (and some luck too i guess)

But i guess if a Turret ship player outmaneuvers his opponent it's just dumb luck and OP ships, but when a Phantom just default sidehooks every turn i guess that's the pinnacle of flying... Oh well!

People want to be able to win without changing the way they play. Thats all these threads are. Turrets are an easy scape goat but the fundamental problem is that some people assume that if they lose its through no fault of their own but because of OP turrets/cards or dice.

This game is won or lost on subtle things like deployment and asteroid placement as can be seen from the worlds finals but there will ALWAYS be people will blame Sith like turrets/luck/netlisting before examining their own proverbial houses of glass.

Can we stop with the straw man that people who dislike turrets always lose against them it's just not true, I've killed plenty of falcons and outriders it's not that I can't win against them it's that they invalidate a major part of the game which is good flying.

When your flying against a turret good flying suffers because it's more important to get shots in early than it is to fly well.

There are people that love interceptors but can't take them in competitive play unless their names fel, autothrusters wasn't made on a whim the devs recognized there was a genuine issue.

As for the myth that you have to be awesome to do well with a turret ship it's just not true, I flew a turret ship for the first time when wave five hit and with no experience wiped the floor with my opposition.

So how about we have less hyperbole and more genuine discussion.

People want to be able to win without changing the way they play. Thats all these threads are. Turrets are an easy scape goat but the fundamental problem is that some people assume that if they lose its through no fault of their own but because of OP turrets/cards or dice.

This game is won or lost on subtle things like deployment and asteroid placement as can be seen from the worlds finals but there will ALWAYS be people will blame Sith like turrets/luck/netlisting before examining their own proverbial houses of glass.

But stubbornly sticking to losing builds is just dumb. If you play just friendly games, okay pick what's fun to you. But if you have aspirations to play somewhat competitive you can't play 6 HWKs without turrets and expect to come out victorious.

There are however people insisting on just building a list they like for fluff reasons and then expecting to win worlds with it while not even being exceptionally skilled. And then they lose to someone, whether if they were outplayed or just fell to superior listbuilding or luck does not matter, and come to whine about OP stuff.

While complaining is not essentially a bad thing to do, and necessary in some cases, in a lot of cases you can tell by the way they post if you need to take the guy serious or if he falls into said category!

Can we stop with the straw man that people who dislike turrets always lose against them it's just not true, I've killed plenty of falcons and outriders it's not that I can't win against them it's that they invalidate a major part of the game which is good flying.

When your flying against a turret good flying suffers because it's more important to get shots in early than it is to fly well.

There are people that love interceptors but can't take them in competitive play unless their names fel, autothrusters wasn't made on a whim the devs recognized there was a genuine issue.

As for the myth that you have to be awesome to do well with a turret ship it's just not true, I flew a turret ship for the first time when wave five hit and with no experience wiped the floor with my opposition.

So how about we have less hyperbole and more genuine discussion.

Turrets do invalidate flying. Thats the point of turrets. Complaining about turrets nullifying flying is like going to a barbecue and complaining about being served meat. Your opponent paid a massive premium for turrets so they should get what they paid for. Its a strategic choice that dictates the rest of the list and in that respect it is fine. Or are you advocating that it should be made blatantly inferior? If so then my post stands.

Interceptors are not viable because of the fact that evade is not anywhere near as good as the literal smorgasbord of offensive rerolls not because of turrets. Bwings were a problem for interceptors long before fat han turned up and if the meta keeps to the 2-3 ship paradigm then they will be a problem again for EVERYONE.

As for the myth that you have to be awesome to do well with a turret ship it's just not true, I flew a turret ship for the first time when wave five hit and with no experience wiped the floor with my opposition.

Oh man. I just realized this is exactly what I did with my Decimator in our Wave 5 tournament. I'd hardly ever flown a big turret ship until the weekend before the tournament, and then I went undefeated. Although I can't exactly say I wiped the floor with my opposition - almost every match was a nail-biter.

Interceptors are not viable because of the fact that evade is not anywhere near as good as the literal smorgasbord of offensive rerolls not because of turrets.

Smorgasboard = Gunner. It's not all the re-roll options that make these ships dangerous to interceptors, it's just one. The ability to force your opponent's precious points-sink to either take a damage, or spend the token to face another attack, but this time with unmodified agility dice is... brutal. I feel dirty running it on my Decimator, but it wins. And it makes your own points-sink much more effective against those high-agility targets.

Because let's face it - 3 agility is great! If all these Fat Han's had to face TIEs without a Gunner they would die. I'll share an anecdote here. My friend flew Falcon + support exclusively in preparation for Regionals, and I flew Imperial Aces stuff. I beat him every single time, in dozens of games. The very game he started including Gunner or Luke was the day I started losing. Consistently. I haven't beaten him using TIE interceptors since then. Granted, I have won a few times against Gunner/Luke Falcons with my interceptors, but it's a LOT harder and a LOT more reliant on luck.

It's also not right to say that they invalidate flying. If on a large ship it takes a lot of skill to maneuver correctly and avoid bumps and asteroids. You still need to outguess your opponent even more if you fly large ships. And if i understand well it is large ships they are complaining about after all.

Add the massive cost of a turret to this fact and you must see that there is no disproportion in cost/effect of turrets. As stated they cost 1/2 to 2/3 of your list so theybshould better be good.

Can we stop with the straw man that people who dislike turrets always lose against them it's just not true, I've killed plenty of falcons and outriders it's not that I can't win against them it's that they invalidate a major part of the game which is good flying.

When your flying against a turret good flying suffers because it's more important to get shots in early than it is to fly well.

There are people that love interceptors but can't take them in competitive play unless their names fel, autothrusters wasn't made on a whim the devs recognized there was a genuine issue.

As for the myth that you have to be awesome to do well with a turret ship it's just not true, I flew a turret ship for the first time when wave five hit and with no experience wiped the floor with my opposition.

So how about we have less hyperbole and more genuine discussion.

If you have slain many a falcon or outrider then turrets clearly are not a problem. So i dont know what your complaint is about.

Turrets do invalidate flying. Thats the point of turrets. Complaining about turrets nullifying flying is like going to a barbecue and complaining about being served meat. Your opponent paid a massive premium for turrets so they should get what they paid for. Its a strategic choice that dictates the rest of the list and in that respect it is fine. Or are you advocating that it should be made blatantly inferior? If so then my post stands.

Interceptors are not viable because of the fact that evade is not anywhere near as good as the literal smorgasbord of offensive rerolls not because of turrets. Bwings were a problem for interceptors long before fat han turned up and if the meta keeps to the 2-3 ship paradigm then they will be a problem again for EVERYONE.

Yeah but I don't fly interceptors do I, I kill stuff with a HLC equipped defender or an exposed decimator.

I haven't flown interceptor lists since wave four came out because they were getting killed by turrets too frequently, which is the same issue most imp players ran into.

When one type of ship prevents another from being fielded that's an issue that's why I don't like turrets.

And yet, Alphas were getting used to great effect in the pre-Wave 4 tournaments. Turrets do not invalidate Interceptors. Putting all your points into such a glass cannon is a risky strategy. The number of times I've one shot Fel, while not very likely in probability, is still a very rough hit to the morale.

Can we stop with the straw man that people who dislike turrets always lose against them it's just not true, I've killed plenty of falcons and outriders it's not that I can't win against them it's that they invalidate a major part of the game which is good flying.

When your flying against a turret good flying suffers because it's more important to get shots in early than it is to fly well.

There are people that love interceptors but can't take them in competitive play unless their names fel, autothrusters wasn't made on a whim the devs recognized there was a genuine issue.

As for the myth that you have to be awesome to do well with a turret ship it's just not true, I flew a turret ship for the first time when wave five hit and with no experience wiped the floor with my opposition.

So how about we have less hyperbole and more genuine discussion.

If you have slain many a falcon or outrider then turrets clearly are not a problem. So i dont know what your complaint is about.

Turrets do invalidate flying. Thats the point of turrets. Complaining about turrets nullifying flying is like going to a barbecue and complaining about being served meat. Your opponent paid a massive premium for turrets so they should get what they paid for. Its a strategic choice that dictates the rest of the list and in that respect it is fine. Or are you advocating that it should be made blatantly inferior? If so then my post stands.

Interceptors are not viable because of the fact that evade is not anywhere near as good as the literal smorgasbord of offensive rerolls not because of turrets. Bwings were a problem for interceptors long before fat han turned up and if the meta keeps to the 2-3 ship paradigm then they will be a problem again for EVERYONE.

Yeah but I don't fly interceptors do I, I kill stuff with a HLC equipped defender or an exposed decimator.

I haven't flown interceptor lists since wave four came out because they were getting killed by turrets too frequently, which is the same issue most imp players ran into.

When one type of ship prevents another from being fielded that's an issue that's why I don't like turrets.

If you think its the turrets killing your interceptors then you are going to get a rude awakening once the meta shifts away from turrets again.

Can we stop with the straw man that people who dislike turrets always lose against them it's just not true, I've killed plenty of falcons and outriders it's not that I can't win against them it's that they invalidate a major part of the game which is good flying.

When your flying against a turret good flying suffers because it's more important to get shots in early than it is to fly well.

There are people that love interceptors but can't take them in competitive play unless their names fel, autothrusters wasn't made on a whim the devs recognized there was a genuine issue.

As for the myth that you have to be awesome to do well with a turret ship it's just not true, I flew a turret ship for the first time when wave five hit and with no experience wiped the floor with my opposition.

So how about we have less hyperbole and more genuine discussion.

If you have slain many a falcon or outrider then turrets clearly are not a problem. So i dont know what your complaint is about.

Turrets do invalidate flying. Thats the point of turrets. Complaining about turrets nullifying flying is like going to a barbecue and complaining about being served meat. Your opponent paid a massive premium for turrets so they should get what they paid for. Its a strategic choice that dictates the rest of the list and in that respect it is fine. Or are you advocating that it should be made blatantly inferior? If so then my post stands.

Interceptors are not viable because of the fact that evade is not anywhere near as good as the literal smorgasbord of offensive rerolls not because of turrets. Bwings were a problem for interceptors long before fat han turned up and if the meta keeps to the 2-3 ship paradigm then they will be a problem again for EVERYONE.

Yeah but I don't fly interceptors do I, I kill stuff with a HLC equipped defender or an exposed decimator.

I haven't flown interceptor lists since wave four came out because they were getting killed by turrets too frequently, which is the same issue most imp players ran into.

When one type of ship prevents another from being fielded that's an issue that's why I don't like turrets.

If you think its the turrets killing your interceptors then you are going to get a rude awakening once the meta shifts away from turrets again.

And why is that?

If you were to take turrets out of the game what do the rebels have that could stand up to whisper and fel?

Interceptors should be getting a nice boost when Autothrusters come out. I'll repeat my initial comment that I wish it had been included in the boost ability originally, but thems the breaks.

And yes: gunner + turreted big ship is horrifying to fly against. That's one of the reasons I'm excited for the Tie Advanced options: we'll have some nicely tanky ships to run in our squads. And given that the evade action is a pillar of Fat Han, homing missiles might be a nice idea as well.

The thing is: high agility arc dodgers ought not be going up against gunships. Like the Falcon. They ought to be going after the Falcon's escorts. Soontier should see a group of 4 Tala's as an all you can eat points buffet. Let a tank slug it out with a tank.

If you were to take turrets out of the game what do the rebels have that could stand up to whisper and fel?

Loads of high PS pilots with abilities that synergies really well with each other, turrets are not the only way to shoot a phantom they were just the easiest way.

If you were to take turrets out of the game what do the rebels have that could stand up to whisper and fel?

Jakes (bad-ass motherfucker) Farrel w/ *V.I *PTL *Rockets

Advanced Sensors V.I Keyan

R3-A2 on an EU PS 10 X-wing (Wes especially, since he has extra game against 2-ship builds by ******* with the decimator's target lock)

In Soontir's case, he's dead to a successful block.

Or are we assuming all rebel players are incapable of checking maneuverable ships without resorting to a 360 degree turret? I know it's tempting to swat the fly with a nuclear bomb, but it's not the only way to kill the super-fast Z-95/Tie-Fighter