I was looking at some real world examples of turrets and found for the most part, the turret either isn't 360 capable or has an extreme tracking problem for targets inverse to the original scoping.

This often means that regardless of the machine, there was/is a blind point to move around the unit and fight it without return fire. In Xwing here turrets have no blind spot and there is 0 location for another unit to fight that ship without facing retaliation. I assume that this is the biggest negative opinion about Turrets.

Looking at the turrets in the current game, we can evaluate the threat of turrets. It appears that Turrets are more acceptable when the pure area is compromised. The Firespray has flank openings, the turret upgrade cards have a maximum range 2, even the Outriders Donut hole HLC even seems acceptable when compared to the 2 Monsters the Falcon and the Decimator.

Looking at the Huge ship Tantive IV we notice that the designers already considered some limitations to turrets with the Primary Turret cannon ranging 3-5 and not being allowed to cross the centre. The auxillary/secondary weapons while also turrets can only fire abeam.

So, after all this, why doesn't the Falcon or the Decimator have that blind spot or reduced effectiveness area? Autothrusters while great for Interceptors don't give the basic fighters like X-wings any more hope.

Could the Falcon/Decimator or other Ships with unfettered turrets have a rule to create this gap and give players a sense of manoeuvre fighting without ruining them points wise?

Got a thought and opinion or some insight? Share it here. Have some evidence or canon material that suggest for or against the idea, link it. This is just a discussion and has not intent to boycott or force change in the game.

The Falcon is basically a disc with a turret covering each hemisphere, so no blind spot there, but other than that I get what you mean

RoV

According to the books (I'm not sure which one anymore, could even be Han Solo at Star's End, which I haven't read in a long time. A long time) even the Falcon has a blind spot where the bottom and top turrets cross but can't fire closer to the ship.

It's mentioned in Star's End but X-Wing doesn't have the Z axis movement necessary to allow ships to take advantage of it.

According to the books (I'm not sure which one anymore, could even be Han Solo at Star's End, which I haven't read in a long time. A long time) even the Falcon has a blind spot where the bottom and top turrets cross but can't fire closer to the ship.

Honestly, if you're THAT close to the Falcon you're probably bumping the base =]

Nah, not lorewise at any rate. .

Can't remember how big it was in X-Wing Alliance though.

The Falcon is basically a disc with a turret covering each hemisphere, so no blind spot there, but other than that I get what you mean

RoV

Nope there's quite a lot of real estate not covered by those guns, go watch hope again both guns are aimed up from the superstructure and there's no way Luke or Han could make those guns depress 90 degrees.

Gamewise, I think they kept the Decimator as is because it is a counterpart to the Falcon.

Should they have rules to decrease their effectiveness? Nah, let's see first what happens when the new shinies arrive.

5 Heavy Scyks with Mangler cannons should be able to put a dent in any large base.

I was looking at some real world examples of turrets and found for the most part, the turret either isn't 360 capable or has an extreme tracking problem for targets inverse to the original scoping.

This often means that regardless of the machine, there was/is a blind point to move around the unit and fight it without return fire. In Xwing here turrets have no blind spot and there is 0 location for another unit to fight that ship without facing retaliation. I assume that this is the biggest negative opinion about Turrets.

However, real world examples of turrets don't usually operate on a highly maneuverable platform within a 3D plane.

While it's true there are areas of the Falcon and Decimator etc which would present "blind spots" for their turrets in a strictly 2D environment, in a 3D plane the pilots can account for this by adjusting the ship's elevation or rotation to bring targets into arc.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe either the Decimator or Falcon can fly abeam of their engine line. This would always leave a blind spot within its own wash unless somehow the turrets have the ability to shoot below zero degrees, something that requires the gunners pod to be tower mounted. 3D manoeuvres mean nothing unless you can always have your "pancake" face to the enemy.

real world

Here is the main flaw in the reasoning.

Looking at the Huge ship Tantive IV we notice that the designers already considered some limitations to turrets with the Primary Turret cannon ranging 3-5 and not being allowed to cross the centre.

The inability to shoot backwards is probably a nod to TIE fighter, plus you can cover the vast majority of your blind spots with hardpoint weaponary.

So, after all this, why doesn't the Falcon or the Decimator have that blind spot or reduced effectiveness area? Autothrusters while great for Interceptors don't give the basic fighters like X-wings any more hope.

X-wings have health, interceptors don't. Taking on a Falcon with equivalent points on X-wings is at least a fair fight if not in the X-wing's favour. Turrets are a problem for arc dodgers, but if we didn't have them arc dodgers would dominate.

That, and do you expect to arcdodge in an X-wing? Even if the Falcon didn't have a full power 360 turret the X-wing's going to get hit.

when compared to the 2 Monsters the Falcon and the Decimator.

Only the Falcon really, because of its ability to effectively ignore the first two points of damage a turn (technically it ignores 1.625 damage every turn when you factor out its evade dice). Even then, its danger is a bit overblown. Interceptors hate it but equivalent points of the bulkier ships can handle it.

The Decimator's a brick of health but has no evade dice protecting it, so that health is worth a lot less in real terms.

So, after all this, why doesn't the Falcon or the Decimator have that blind spot or reduced effectiveness area? Autothrusters while great for Interceptors don't give the basic fighters like X-wings any more hope.

X-wings have health, interceptors don't. Taking on a Falcon with equivalent points on X-wings is at least a fair fight if not in the X-wing's favour. Turrets are a problem for arc dodgers, but if we didn't have them arc dodgers would dominate.

That, and do you expect to arcdodge in an X-wing? [...]

I thought people were hoping FFG would buff the X-Wing so it could arcdodge?

They have better tech than we do, so naturally they also have better turrets

The Falcon is basically a disc with a turret covering each hemisphere, so no blind spot there, but other than that I get what you mean

RoV

Nope there's quite a lot of real estate not covered by those guns, go watch hope again both guns are aimed up from the superstructure and there's no way Luke or Han could make those guns depress 90 degrees.

The turrets aren't aimed up from the superstructure, the model is accurate in that regard. There's some kind of gravity shift thing in the EU to explain why the interior shots don't match up with the exterior ones.