Also, I suggested this idea a very long time ago and found that it overly complicates play for the turrets. I think the problems isn't turrets, it's that the turret is as strong as the B-Wing attack. That is atypical; if turrets were always that awesome, why not equip every ship with a turret?? The proclaimed cost factor built into the turret ships (point cost) is simply not enough.

Because star wars space battles were based on ww2 dog fighting and not every plane had a turret back then either.

Wonder if it would be make it be better for the game if turrets required an action to allow them to fire outside of the front arc.

Would mean you'd have to either position your ship for front firing or lose an evade/focus to fire outside the front arc.

Same would be for Firespray using the rear arc.

I don't think it would break the turreted ships. Might be more exciting to play having to make a decision.

Just thinking of turrets only (not firespray)

Perhaps could have worked prior to autothrusters card:

All 3 firepower turrets - minus 1 attack dice when attacking an enemy outside your main firing arc. Still gives turrets a meaning in the game, but reduces the effectiveness a bit.

Can't we just stop the turret hate threads already. We are a few weeks ( if that ) from an answer to turrets coming into the meta. Autothrusters will cause a big shift in the meta away from so many Turrets. You don't want to make an over reaching fix that makes the ships with turrets useless.

I heavily disagree. It only makes Interceptors and A-Wings slightly more viable but it will not shift anything on the turret builds. They will be dominant for 1 reason: Phantom.

I don't know, A-wings seem to be perfectly viable right now. Granted, I don't think Autothrusters plays that well into the current A-wing builds, but it certainly helps the uniques.

Or we could stop beating up the Firespray, Y-wing, HWK, Decimator, Outrider and most Falcons to try and take one build down a notch.

Fat Han's not an unbalanced ship, he's just got an artificial tournament advantage courtesy of time limits, his high point cost and durability and MoV. The way to take him down is to make ship's contribution to MoV depend on remaining health rather than a simple dead/alive.

Can't we just stop the turret hate threads already. We are a few weeks ( if that ) from an answer to turrets coming into the meta. Autothrusters will cause a big shift in the meta away from so many Turrets. You don't want to make an over reaching fix that makes the ships with turrets useless.

I heavily disagree. It only makes Interceptors and A-Wings slightly more viable but it will not shift anything on the turret builds. They will be dominant for 1 reason: Phantom.

I don't know, A-wings seem to be perfectly viable right now. Granted, I don't think Autothrusters plays that well into the current A-wing builds, but it certainly helps the uniques.

A-wings are cheaper and more durable than interceptors

Auto-thrusters kind of escalate their cost past what their 2 red die can justify, but they're decently tanky and cheap already.

Interceptors are bundles of wasting points and offense against turrets currently, hopefuly autothrusters changes that

Or we could stop beating up the Firespray, Y-wing, HWK, Decimator, Outrider and most Falcons to try and take one build down a notch.

Fat Han's not an unbalanced ship, he's just got an artificial tournament advantage courtesy of time limits, his high point cost and durability and MoV. The way to take him down is to make ship's contribution to MoV depend on remaining health rather than a simple dead/alive.

The Firespray is NOT a turret. Turrets have literally infinite more coverage.

"But, fickle!" you say "don't turrets just provide 180 more degrees coverage?"

Yes, but you can phrase it this way

The Firespray has two 90 degree blindspots. A turret has none

If FFG were going to make an underlying mechanical change to turrets, this one is not it.

I'd hope that, if and only if FFG decided it was actually necessary, they'd do something a lot more measured and sensible.

And Auxiliary arcs don't need to be penalized. Doing so now would make it that much harder for FFG to have fun with firing arcs going forward.

The Firespray is NOT a turret. Turrets have literally infinite more coverage.

"But, fickle!" you say "don't turrets just provide 180 more degrees coverage?"

Yes, but you can phrase it this way

The Firespray has two 90 degree blindspots. A turret has none

Not true.

The turrets on the Decimator and Falcon have Range 1-3 turrets. That's still finite coverage. All it means is that there isn't a space in which a ship with a Range 3 limit on its shots can fire without risking return fire.

Most turrets can't shoot at Range 3. As area is equal to pi r^2, Range 3 accounts for 55% of a R1 - R3 firing arc.

The turrets in the Turret Upgrade slot are Range 1 - 2. If we're going by your Range 1-3 turret having a 100% coverage of the Range 1-3 area, then a Range 1-2 turret has only 44%, less than the Firespray's 50%. This rises to 69% if you include the primary's mediocre Range 3 shot, an whether that's worth including depends on if you're dealing with a Y-wing or a HWK. The Outrider HLC has 89% coverage of Range 1-3.

Most ships have 25% coverage of R1-3.

So why isn't the Firespray a turret again?

The Firespray is NOT a turret. Turrets have literally infinite more coverage.

"But, fickle!" you say "don't turrets just provide 180 more degrees coverage?"

Yes, but you can phrase it this way

The Firespray has two 90 degree blindspots. A turret has none

Not true.

The turrets on the Decimator and Falcon have Range 1-3 turrets. That's still finite coverage. All it means is that there isn't a space in which a ship with a Range 3 limit on its shots can fire without risking return fire.

Most turrets can't shoot at Range 3. As area is equal to pi r^2, Range 3 accounts for 55% of a R1 - R3 firing arc.

The turrets in the Turret Upgrade slot are Range 1 - 2. If we're going by your Range 1-3 turret having a 100% coverage of the Range 1-3 area, then a Range 1-2 turret has only 44%, less than the Firespray's 50%. This rises to 69% if you include the primary's mediocre Range 3 shot, an whether that's worth including depends on if you're dealing with a Y-wing or a HWK. The Outrider HLC has 89% coverage of Range 1-3.

Most ships have 25% coverage of R1-3.

So why isn't the Firespray a turret again?

A Firespray isn't a turret because, according to the rules available, it isn't a turret, by definition. It is a primary arc and an auxiliary arc. It cannot fire outside of its firing arcs.

I'm not even sure how that would work, since actions and attacks occur in separate phases. Would the ship get a turret token that it could then spend in order to attack? Gunner would be rendered all but useless.

If primary turret weapons merit any change, it should be something simple, like a reduced number of dice against targets outside the arc. FFG demonstrated that they're open to change when they altered the barrel roll rules, so I don't see this being terribly difficult to implement, if that's what they really wanted to do.

I said this a few months ago and I still think it's the simplest fix: range 1 damage bonuses only apply to printed firing arcs.

Doesn't penalize turrets extremely, gives a chance for nimble fighters to tail turrets and might force a turret player to fly differently.

The issue isn't so much turrets as much as it is being able to reroll attack die four times in a single attack round with Han and Luke / Gunner without penalty to action economy. Coupled with MF and 3-PO, it turns the Falcon into a one-man army. Still killable, but frustratingly unique. Kenkirk comes nowhere close to maintaining survivability while holding onto nearly guaranteed damage output.

The fix to the abundance of turrets is more swarm lists. None of the turrets can withstand sustained fire from more than a few ships. Now, if only smarmy lists had a reasonable chance against VI ACD Phantoms.....

No offense, but you're not the first to think of this. Swarms haven't actually faired as well as you'd think in the current meta and it's not just because of the Phantom; swarms can easily lose to Super Dash and Fat Han too.

I'm well aware that my post was far from original. It was somewhat sarcastic, and it's intent was to point out that Turrets are far far from unbeatable.

Honestly the only turreted ships that are really a problem (and I'm using the term "problem" lightly here) are the falcon and decimator. To me it makes more sense to have ships that have a turret natively reduce their agility by 1 to a minimum of 0 when shooting a ship outside their arc. This would make sense thematically too sense a ship has to remain somewhat steady in order for the gunners to shoot accurately. During a new hope we see the falcon look almost perfectly still while han and Luke shoot ties. The decimator would remain unaffected by this (which it should) because it's not really as much of an issue as a fat falcon. The outrider and falcon would be the only ships affected. They would still do well but would be brought more into balance in my opinion with other ships.

Is the VT-49 really a problem? I think people tend to assume it is because it's in a similar mould to the Falcon. It's the double or triple damage that's the "issue", and that issue is born less from its ability to kill than from its ability to survive. It can win by the timer. On one side, that means it's only a tournament issue. On the other side, this board is mainly tournament stuff and tournament lists are what get netdecked into casual.

A simple nerf not over the top. +1 additional die for range 1 is only gained in the primary firing arc.

Our group has been playing this way for a while now, and it works well. It's just a minor nerf and simple to implement with no major impact on the game. It just makes piloting to get enemies in arc more valuable and requires better skill when flying.

Absolutely not. I can't wait for all the whining to stop. "Turrets are OP!" "I can't hit phantoms!"

Get over it already. This forum used to actually contribute in a positive way. Ever since wave 4, it's been constant bitching.

Turrets are fine. Phantoms are fine. Autothrusters are fine. Stop.

Absolutely not. I can't wait for all the whining to stop. "Turrets are OP!" "I can't hit phantoms!"

Get over it already. This forum used to actually contribute in a positive way. Ever since wave 4, it's been constant bitching.

Turrets are fine. Phantoms are fine. Autothrusters are fine. Stop.

You're gonna get it now. You just infringed on 1st Amendment Rights and stuff.

I don't think turret needs to be nerfed. Balance-wise, I think they are at the right spot. Not too hard, not too easy to beat. Nerf them a little and you won't see any.

Since they are now competitive and a little easier to play than a build without, we just happen to see them everywhere. That is my personal problem with them, I'm tired of always fighting against a turret. On the other hand, the more game I make against them, the better I am to counter them so, as long as the meta is turret heavy, I guess that's in my favor.

It's not that turret needs to be nerfed, it's more that the game needs a new premium list that everyone will copy... so all my X-Wing prayers go for the Worlds to be won by something else than a turret. Come on Paul, you can do it!

I've been toying with the idea of a separate dial to designate turret arc, or even just a face down counter. Turret Arc Dial/Counter would just specify Front/Back/Left/Right (Fore/Aft/Port/Starboard?). Keeps the 360 arc of the turret, but makes you think a little bit more about where you are going & what you will be able to shoot.

Arcs could just be the base corner to diagonally opposite corner?

The fix to large, primary turrets (i.e, the only ones that are actually a pain in the ass) should have come when the yt-1300 was originally released and given four different arcs to rotate their turret to at set speeds (after movement, rotate to adjacent arc if wanted) but the time is long past for that

I agree, it's too late now, but it would've been a better idea at the start to require choosing an arc, or better yet 2 adjacent arcs, during Activation (but not as an action). This would've given opponents the ability to arc dodge, and better simulate firing from a turret because the crew in the gunner's seat still has to rotate to target enemies.

Any video game I've used a turret in (like KOTOR), you had to anticipate where you targets would be, and if you guessed wrong, you'd be hit from outside your view and wouldn't have a target to shoot. The way it's implemented in X-wing, your gunner magically faces to the ideal position every moment they fire.

It isn't magic, it's abstraction. The ships are not exactly where the base is, they are somewhere in there. The maneuvers, shots, hits, point totals all of it is an abstraction for lots of maneuvering and shooting. That is why the ships don't explode when their bases touch, except with huge. That is why overlapping an asteroid doesn't kill you dead.

The gunner has time to check their targeting information, orient and shoot.

Absolutely not. I can't wait for all the whining to stop. "Turrets are OP!" "I can't hit phantoms!"

Get over it already. This forum used to actually contribute in a positive way. Ever since wave 4, it's been constant bitching.

Turrets are fine. Phantoms are fine. Autothrusters are fine. Stop.

You're gonna get it now. You just infringed on 1st Amendment Rights and stuff.

Well, some people here are international, and don't technically have that right guaranteed.

And I violated nothing, because I merely told them what to say, I don't revoke their right to say anything else. They still have free choice as to whether or not to stop complaining

It'll make Push the Limit almost mandatory on turreted ships, so that you could get both the benefit of a turret and some attack modifier (focus/TL). Super Dash might be OK with that though (because of Kyle).

That said, this is an interesting idea. Went to a Store Championship recently, and indeed, the game is pretty much dominated by turrets nowadays. That and Phantoms.

Well, some people here are international, and don't technically have that right guaranteed.

It isn't magic, it's abstraction. The ships are not exactly where the base is, they are somewhere in there. The maneuvers, shots, hits, point totals all of it is an abstraction for lots of maneuvering and shooting. That is why the ships don't explode when their bases touch, except with huge. That is why overlapping an asteroid doesn't kill you dead.

The gunner has time to check their targeting information, orient and shoot.

Well said.

Good grief.

No and No.

Fix Ordinance ... yes.

Learn to play the game as your Imp Homer friends like to say.