Yeah, after WW2 there really wasn't a whole lot of need to put a bunch of turrets on a strategic bomber. Speed was the defense going into the jet age. Once missile got the capability to shoot down aircraft you didn't even need to see, a couple of turrets with cannons in them was useless.

Now though, if they did make an aircraft that had defense turrets, undoubtedly they would have target stabilization technology.

In a "go back in time and redesign from scratch way...

I'd restrict all turret primaries to the forward arc, unless there was a crew member with a "turret crew" on board.

If the balance worked out, I'd even let a ship have more than one attack- assuming they had enough turret crew members.

It would be interesting to see the choice between spending Turret Crew Chewie on a crit, if that meant losing your turret. Or Turret Crew Leia might see some use.

It would be hard to balance properly- maybe even impossible- but it would be fun if we could see Chewie flying while Luke and Han manned the guns against a swarm.

That would have been my approach too. If you want to fire outside your arc, you need a gunner. So instead of allowing you to make a second attack if you miss, a gunner would allow you to fire outside your firing arc. You could have gone the way to give each gunner their own ability, kinda like the current generic gunner and Luke.

Kinda like the Huge ship now with their secondary turrets. You can have more than one attack per round with the ship but they come with a cost.

But it is now done and we have to live with it. As much as the turrets are powerful, as much as it wouldn't have been Star Wars if the Falcon was a piece of ..... Turrets have their place in this game. What the designers needs to do is continue to create interesting ship without them and upgrades that work against them, like Autothruster.

I suspect that their presence will calm down once wave 6 comes out. New toys and Autothruster should drive a lot of players out of this build. If after wave 6 we continue to see an overwhelming turret presence, then I'll start to worry. But then again, if my memory serves me right, I think I heard one of the designer say that they had a couple of solutions in mind for the turrets overpresence but wanted to see first if there really was a problem instead of jumping to conclusion and risking making things worst.

In the real world I believe they could make effective aerial turrets if the will and need was there. They can do with with ground/sea based weapon systems although I will admit the acceleration prospects in modern combat aircraft are huge which makes the calculations far more difficult especially when three dimensions are considered.

I'm thinking that these space base turrets have compensators that generally perform automatic corrections for the change in the ship's motion. This is to say that even as the ship moves around the guns will generally be pointed the same place at least until they can no longer be moved that far. Although it took a lot of getting used to I can recall the old Star Lords arcane game where you could fly your ship with a gunner; while the pilot did choose where the was pointed at and where he shot the gunner's weapon would maintain the same relative screen position independent of the pilot's action. Flying something with incredible mobility did make a gunner's life a pain (and generally not worth the quarters) but with if one knew they would have a gunner's support they would set the ship up with a lot less mobility (to make shooting easier) and also boost the firepower (making it more deadly).

In X-Wing the problem with turrets is because the ones we think about have as much firepower as anything else in the game. Does anyone really have problems with the 2 dice the YT-2400 and ORS spit normally spit out? It is the 3 dice options which match the forward firepower of most fighters which really gets under people's nerves. The reason for this is probably the limited range of dice used in the game as the steps from 1-4 dice don't leave a lot of room for variation. In a way it reminds me of issues I had with WotC's SWM where everything was done in steps of 10 hp/damage when using steps of 5 would have allowed a lot more room for variations.

Even in the modern attack craft like the Apache Helicopter and the F-14 (and other two seated fighter craft) The copilot handles the Target Lock, weapon selection and other set up work, but the actual trigger is fired by the pilot who is also in control of the movements of the attack craft.

This is patently not true... at least as far as the Apache attack helicopter is concerned. The Gunner MOST DEFINATELY has full control over the aiming and firing of the aircraft's weapons. Not that that really matters as far as the discussion of turrets in XWM is concerned.

The problem with turrets in x wing is that there's no player involvement outside of "have you found the mythical 361st degree? No? Let's roll dice)

Turrets would have been great if they involved some kind of decision making , such as having a 90 arc that could pivot (or four arcs) 90 degrees after movement. Just something to involve the players and not entirely invalidate the enemy's maneuvers.

Some will say this implementation would favor high PS. I say that's really any different than currently.

Point costs would have to be adjusted too, with the highest skills remaining unchanged and the lower cheapened.

I actually love the design of turret on the YT-2400. It's only 2 dice, which is only as big a threat as a Tie Fighter. If you want even the option to add more firepower, it's 5 points. Adding the actual cannon will cost anywhere from 2-7 points. The most popular option will cost as much as a Z-95, and leave you incredibly vulnerable to fast, maneuverable opponents. In my mind, that's what it should be.

In my mind, the design of the Falcon isn't really a problem per set. It's more that the ships and builds which would counter it don't tend to do well against anything else. Name something that's pre-wave 5, and can reliably do well against both of the lists at the most recently world championship?

I do think we're about to see some interesting things in wave 6. And even just adding autothrusters will do a lot of good. Warthog Y-Wings will be fun against Han. As will Darth Freaking Vader. Those should all be fun against a Phantom as well. Which means things are about to explode in the most delightful way.

Historically and realistically, turrets simply aren't an effective option in air combat. That held true for purely defensive options, and the idea of slapping a bunch of turrets onto a flying platform for anti-fighter work is pretty ludicrous.

Yep. The Y-wing is basically the Boulton-Paul Defiant of the Star Wars universe. I like them anyway.

I've seen a good suggestion which was to track facing of turrets. The turret has a 90 degree arc, and it's an action (or perhaps part of a move) to shift the firing arc by 90 degrees at a time.

I don't see the point of comparing xwings to real life, but if it must be done, lots of modern aircraft use turrets, with lasers. These either burn targets, like the 747 with a death ray. Or they guide munitions like missiles.

As for game mechanics,I don't buy the broken turrets thing. Auto thrusters is coming, if more is needed FFG will provide.

Auto Turrets VS Manual Turrets are a diffrent story. if you sit in a space boat and have the soul purpose of being a gunner

(Y-Wing, YT-1300 etc etc) It seems fair enough to me.

What Buhallin and Forgottenlore are saying is exactly why shooting from the turret with the ship on autopilot was such a horror in X-Wing Alliance.

Start around minute 7 to skip the explanation

Must be an ORS. Remember the Millennium Falcon has been modified with 2 turrets doubling the firepower, and has had reinforced hull and deflector shielding.

I think that ships with turrets should spend a focus token to shoot out of their fire arc.

Turrets to fire in 360 degrees should be an action. Alternatively they can lock it forward and pick a different action and only fire in their forward arc.

I think that ships with turrets should spend a focus token to shoot out of their fire arc.

Turrets to fire in 360 degrees should be an action. Alternatively they can lock it forward and pick a different action and only fire in their forward arc.

Yeah, I'm sure people would continue to use them... we all know how popular Blaster turret is...

Turret ship in general just need a lot of firepower against to counter, but people seems to be stuck in a 2 ship team building mentality: Dash+Corran or Decimator+Phantom. That is not a lot of gun pointing toward the big ship.

I hate flying against turret and don't like seeing them on every table these days, but I don't think they need to be nerfed or anything. They are strong builds easier to fly; a safe bet for people entering the tournament scene and a deadly tool in the hand of a good player.

Wave 6 is coming and believe me, we will start to see threads about how Han can't hit an Interceptor with Autothrusters, that it's Han freakin Solo and how he should be able to hit anything, about how Soontir is too powerful, that you can't get a sight on him and that his only counter was turrets and that now they can't even hit him. We are doom, doom I tell ya!

I don't see the point of comparing xwings to real life, but if it must be done, lots of modern aircraft use turrets, with lasers. These either burn targets, like the 747 with a death ray. Or they guide munitions like missiles.

As for game mechanics,I don't buy the broken turrets thing. Auto thrusters is coming, if more is needed FFG will provide.

No, the Y-wing is the TBM Avenger of the SW universe; the HWK-290 is more akin to the BP Defiant. The Y-wing has some combat ability w/o fitting a turret, whereas the HWK (support actions aside) is not worth the points spent sans turret. IMO.

The answer is coming in Autothrusters. Arguably the ships that have suffered the most from the turret fire are the highly maneuverable ships like the A-Wings and Interceptors. We also need to keep in mind Turrets have been around since the begining of the game, long before the YT-1300 came along. The Y-Wing has always had the option to ion you with a turret. It took almost 2 years for the first turret to become a *problem and that was not caused by the turret alone. The rise of the turret was only possible because a ship slowed down the Tie Swarm that dominated the meta up until the release of the Phantom. This took the weight of off the YT-1300 and it became a good reliable way to combat the Phantoms.

So really in a way the more "you play the game the ways it's meant to be played" by fielding more maneuverable ships the turrets will be there to balance the game. If you punish Turrets to hard and you will all be over run by Phantoms and Tie Interceptors. At least with a Fat Han you get to roll the red dice even though he's well protected. Against these others you will only roll greens, and that sounds like a great time

While, I am COMPLETELY new to the game, I did watch quite a few games on youtube, and while there are a few things I am not quite comfortable with as far as understanding, from the way dog fighting basicly takes place, it takes a 5 - 10 minute dog fight that would take place in the movie, and strings the thing out so you see it frame by frame in game, which, in my thoughts, you cant have a 360 degree turret exist in that time frame.

Im prob going to take a LOT of flak for this, but, MAYBE....just MAYBE, you can ONLY move the turret 90 degree's each move cycle, and nothing BEYOND 90 degrees, UNLESS you have a crew card, or upgrade card, or <Insert whatever other type of card i might not think of card> here that lets it move to maybe to 180...but that would have to be an expensive upgrade, to better demonstrate that sort of time frame, now the PROBLEM with this idea, besides the fact that all of you pro turret players will want to disembowel me and feed me to a rancor is the ships are ALL ready out, the cards are already out....and then comes into the play of DISTRIBUTION issues. Same problem when someone wanted more damage cards, or pretty much any features that radically alters the current game.

Do I love the idea of new turrets? yes, do I like the idea of having to buy new stuff? not so much, considering i have to play catch up to all of you who have 10 of everything! xD I still need to get at 1 of most the ships yet, bombers, y and tie, the Firespray, the lander and countless other vessels, which, btw, are hard as hell to find, and expensive (on a budget atm)

So why do I bring this personal, seemly meaning less point up? Because I hardly think you want ME, to be the LAST of the jedi to join the ranks of XWM's. The father along a game like this progresses, the harder is it for new players to pick it up, especially if they are broke, but desire the same enjoyment as most of the long time players. Im feeling that, just trying to learn all the possibilities, and it IS, despite what the devs want you to believe, you need more then just the core set, and basic rule knowledge, to go to a turrny, and stand up, which, ive been lead to belive are full 100 point games to begin with.

The more this game expands, the more the rules change, and evolve, the more expensive it gets, and dont get me wrong, I love the models, (minus the scale of the Rebel Transport, I feel it was a tad under sized) I just wish the models were a bit easier to obtain.

Bringing it back to turret reintroduction rules, it would cost to much to fully retrofit the rules even though i think it would feel a bit more "authentic for time frame" It would need to include a brand new dial at most, for turret rotation, then, maybe some new replacement cards for crew and other items. Sure, they could release it for like 5 bucks or so. Then you are left with useless old cards that no longer have a use because the rule change, or are made obsolete with new point cost balance issues. I admire how they are attempting to keep EVERYTHING useful in at least some small way. so i suggest just waiting it out.

Ok, so my move dial is now at a square, shoot everything i just said down now

Yeah, after WW2 there really wasn't a whole lot of need to put a bunch of turrets on a strategic bomber. Speed was the defense going into the jet age. Once missile got the capability to shoot down aircraft you didn't even need to see, a couple of turrets with cannons in them was useless.

Now though, if they did make an aircraft that had defense turrets, undoubtedly they would have target stabilization technology.

There is an aircraft with turrets, they are stabilised, they are just only used for shooting ground targets. I am of course talking about the AC-130 gunship. So yes we have the technology to stabilise mounted weapons.

The reason we don;t have stabilised weapons on aircraft is purely a range question. Take for example the Phalanx point defence system. Effective range <1500m. Modern short range Air-to-air missiles are good from 1km to 50km (e.g. ASRAAM), the latest AMRAAM is good to 180km. No gun can possibly (even if stabilised), hope to match a guided weapon at this range.

Thus given this, fighters carry missiles, and everything else tries not to get seen. Turrets would do nothing.

Just like to add to the SW vs IRL conversation. In both, turrets can only point in one direction at a time, and have blind spots (both permanent and situational blind spots). I feel one of the reasons no one had any problems with say the Ion Turret for example, is that it had a blind spot (range band 3). As for the like of the Falcon not being a problem until recently, I would argue that it overly hampered A-Wings and Interceptors since day one (which is a problem). Even if super turrets (those like the Falcons and Decimators) were not a problem at all, they are still very unfun and unimaginative, especially for a game that is supposed to be about strategic and tactical dogfights.

Just my 2 cents.

Given that turrets seem to pretty much always go on low agility ships, it seems to me that a good balancing factor (IF turrets are really a problem) would be better ordnance. Missiles and torpedoes that are easy(ish) to dodge but hit REALLY hard, like turbo lasers or a weapon with only a couple dice, but each boom or kaboom does double damage.

I would recommend something like this.

If firing a primary weapon that can shoot 360 degrees. You may not gAin an additional dice for range 1 attacks unless the target is in the primary firing arc. That stop 4 dice 360? And promotes flying a little more

What Buhallin and Forgottenlore are saying is exactly why shooting from the turret with the ship on autopilot was such a horror in X-Wing Alliance.

Start around minute 7 to skip the explanation

Manning the turret in X-Wing Alliance did suck but a few software upgrades and it could have gone much more smoothly.

One thing I noticed when watching the video is if that you went with the virtual cockpit (at least I think that was an option) that got rid of all the machinery in the way only leaving you with the HUD things would become a lot easier to track. Learning the controls also would do wonders as this almost seemed to be a case of the pilot deliberately trying to keep targets out of the firing arc.

Let's be clear on Star Wars Technology level. Sure they have light savers, FTL, artificial gravity, anti-gravity, and sentient AI, but other than that their technology seems pretty close to Earth say 1950's.

In a dogfight in the atmosphere I'd put an F-14 (which is a really old ship) up against an X-wing any day. Can you say guided missiles.

In a dogfight in the atmosphere I'd put an F-14 (which is a really old ship) up against an X-wing any day. Can you say guided missiles.

That'd all depend on the relative PS. Getting that target lock on a fast closure would be rough if the F-14 squadron got beat on the PS bid.

So far, I have found none of the arguments and/or solutions convincing. I am not even convinced that turrets, as they currently exist, are really a problem. Everyone seems to have a favorite pilot/ship/weapon and they all seem to be convinced that their particular "thing" is the best "thing" out there and should dominate every other "thing". Those who really like TIE Interceptors/Phantoms?A-wings (and any other hyper mobile ship) really hate turrets (especially the Millennium Falcon) and all come off as whiny because their favorite "thing" is not "Top of the List" on the tourney circuit.

The problem, as I see it, seems to be that the MF is overrated in the game. It probably shouldn't be as maneuverable as it is in the game (no matter how upgraded and modified it is, it is still a Light Freighter). It probably should not have weapons as powerful as they are (360-degree turret or not). If the basic, straight from the factory YT-1300 had been given a 1 die Attack factor and the heavily modified Millennium Falcon a 2 die Attack factor, I don't think we would keep having this conversation over and over and over...

I would much rather keep playing the game, flawed as it is, than try to play the game with most of the solutions I have seen proposed. I wish FFG would do a revision of the YT-1300/MF to correct some of the things several years of playing the game have revealed. And I trust FFG will, if they determine it is warranted, come up with a solution that is both simple and playable. I just don't think that they will conclude that Turrets, in and of themselves, are the problem.

My apologies if I have stepped on anyone's toes here.

Personally, I don't think the problem is the turret ships so much as the super defensive crew that can be put ON the turret ships. A tooled up falcon was not a big deal until 3PO came along and allowed him to guarantee 2 evades a turn, and R2 potentially regenerating shields. Take those away and Fat Han is no longer a super threat.