The 2400 is the epitome of Turretwing. Not only does it get a turret, but it's an HLC turret and landing on asteroids doesn't even affect it! So now both maneuevering it AND maneuvering against it don't matter at all unless you're one of a handful of ships that can exploit the doughnut hole.

Decimator is just a more offense oriented Falcon, it flies exactly like a turret.

If turrets are so bad and surely strip such a huge significant part of the game away then why does FFG continue to use them and top level players use them? If they were as you said they were then anyone could use them and win tournaments and that's just not true.

Do I even need to address how dumb that analogy is?

1.) People will buy them because they prefer to not have to think as hard about their maneuvers. Turretwing players in my area bemoaned that there isn't a scum turret, although that could have just been an attempt to troll me like the one time most of the group I'm in decided to all run Phantom Deci, lol.

2.) Top players use them because they give you an advantage. You have two equally skilled players and one has a ship that can move however it wants and still get a shot and the other doesn't, they have an advantage.

You know, I'm pretty sure fat turrets (and turrets in general) still exist to catch those super annoying arc dodgers. They are the only reliable way to continue to get shots on them, and also do it easier than high pilot skill and swarming. As a swarm player myself, arc dodgers are really annoying. I could complain about them the same way you guys keep complaining about turrets. The deal is this: without those turrets, arc dodgers would dominate even more than they do now. Nothing would keep them in check.

I think the criteria is to prefer playing ships where maneuvering matters in a game that's otherwise based entirely upon maneuvering. Turrets strip a significant portion of the game away. Certain turret ships like Y Wings or HWKs or the ORS are interesting deviations because they actually have downsides in addition to their benefits, unlike Super Dash.

Beethoven's 6th, or a 3 year old banging a wooden spoon onto a metal pan? Isn't it safe to say that Beethoven's 6th is better music?

At some point, people are going to have to accept that turrets have always been part of the game. And will always be part of the game. And that turrets do not necessarily negate the need for good maneuvering.

Seriously, well over 2 years with the Falcon. If you hate turrets that much, you should've quite by now...

The 2400 is the epitome of Turretwing. Not only does it get a turret, but it's an HLC turret and landing on asteroids doesn't even affect it! So now both maneuevering it AND maneuvering against it don't matter at all unless you're one of a handful of ships that can exploit the doughnut hole.

Decimator is just a more offense oriented Falcon, it flies exactly like a turret.

If turrets are so bad and surely strip such a huge significant part of the game away then why does FFG continue to use them and top level players use them? If they were as you said they were then anyone could use them and win tournaments and that's just not true.

Do I even need to address how dumb that analogy is?

1.) People will buy them because they prefer to not have to think as hard about their maneuvers. Turretwing players in my area bemoaned that there isn't a scum turret, although that could have just been an attempt to troll me like the one time most of the group I'm in decided to all run Phantom Deci, lol.

2.) Top players use them because they give you an advantage. You have two equally skilled players and one has a ship that can move however it wants and still get a shot and the other doesn't, they have an advantage.

Again you're argument that it doesn't require as much thought is bogus. At the top level it requires a ton of thought. Paul heaver at world's wasn't just rolling along the outside of the map. Also Paul's matches against Jeff B at Gencon were both 2 matches that really showed how much skill it really takes.

You know, I'm pretty sure fat turrets (and turrets in general) still exist to catch those super annoying arc dodgers. They are the only reliable way to continue to get shots on them, and also do it easier than high pilot skill and swarming. As a swarm player myself, arc dodgers are really annoying. I could complain about them the same way you guys keep complaining about turrets. The deal is this: without those turrets, arc dodgers would dominate even more than they do now. Nothing would keep them in check.

Explains why swarms were so dominant even while soontir existed

Here's the counter argument: you don't need turrets to counter arc dodgers.

Hell, I spent all of wave 5 perfecting the stress wing JUST so I wouldn't have to touch those horrible turrets.

Panic attack and bbbbz also proved similarly capable of handling phantom + phattie.

With the phantom FAR easier to manage, we're back to more reasonable arc dodgers (as long as they're not turrets )

And by reasonable, I mean that if a single z or Tie blocks soontir/Vader, then that poor PS 9 bastard is screwed the only difference is that it relies on your positioning instead of dice

Turrets are not needed at all to counter anything. All they've ever done is screw over maneuverable ships with their stupid failproof advantage until ffg had to release an upgrade just to make interceptors (specifically) viable.

Still waiting on an upgrade to make generic phantoms viable while turrets continue to ignore all forms of maneuvering

You know, I'm pretty sure fat turrets (and turrets in general) still exist to catch those super annoying arc dodgers. They are the only reliable way to continue to get shots on them, and also do it easier than high pilot skill and swarming. As a swarm player myself, arc dodgers are really annoying. I could complain about them the same way you guys keep complaining about turrets. The deal is this: without those turrets, arc dodgers would dominate even more than they do now. Nothing would keep them in check.

Explains why swarms were so dominant even while soontir existed

Here's the counter argument: you don't need turrets to counter arc dodgers.

Hell, I spent all of wave 5 perfecting the stress wing JUST so I wouldn't have to touch those horrible turrets.

Panic attack and bbbbz also proved similarly capable of handling phantom + phattie.

With the phantom FAR easier to manage, we're back to more reasonable arc dodgers (as long as they're not turrets )

And by reasonable, I mean that if a single z or Tie blocks soontir/Vader, then that poor PS 9 bastard is screwed the only difference is that it relies on your positioning instead of dice

Turrets are not needed at all to counter anything. All they've ever done is screw over maneuverable ships with their stupid failproof advantage until ffg had to release an upgrade just to make interceptors (specifically) viable.

Still waiting on an upgrade to make generic phantoms viable while turrets continue to ignore all forms of maneuvering

Countering opponents lists is huge part of the game. If I knew the meta at a tournament was built around arc dodgers I'd definitely bring turrets because they offer the best chance of beating those lists.

Yes blocking can definitely hurt them but that is way easier said than done. A good interceptor player isn't going to give you easy block lanes.

As far Luke with r3a2, good players again WON'T push when Luke is there so you won't be double stressing them and he is going to be the number 1 target and if he dies before fel, you're in trouble.

Turrets are easy to kill. Throw dice at them, stress them, and block them and they go down hard and it's a good possibility that you just killed at least half of there list. If you see engine upgrade then you have to account for boosts when you're picking you're maneuvers. If you keep everyone in formation and don't get shots then that is your fault because 1 big arc is easier to dodge than many small arcs.