Removing the primary weapon bonus outside of arc at R1 would be a good option also. Kind of like ships have done with Dash to stay in his "donut of doom" Soontir and Co. can then flank a turret at R1. Without repercussions.

I like it too. It's simple, elegant, and applies to any ship facing a primary turret, not just the dedicated arc-dodgers. And best of all, it's actually somewhat plausible for FFG to implement it - they did change how range bonuses work in Epic, after all.

A better amendment to the core rules would be on page 11, Step 4, third paragraph. It reads:

"Also, if he is targeted at Range three by the attacker's primary weapon, he rolls one additional defence dice."

Simply add to that paragraph:

"Moreover, if he is targeted outside of the attacker's firing arc by the attacker's primary weapon, he rolls one additional defense dice."

This has a much better chance of removing the disturbance in the force!

Edit: I added the primary weapon the text to the fix. No need to pull anything but Falcons and Decimators into this mix. Frankly, I'd add the same qualifier to Vader crew's ability - has to follow an attack in arc.

Removing the primary weapon bonus outside of arc at R1 would be a good option also. Kind of like ships have done with Dash to stay in his "donut of doom" Soontir and Co. can then flank a turret at R1. Without repercussions.

I like it too. It's simple, elegant, and applies to any ship facing a primary turret, not just the dedicated arc-dodgers. And best of all, it's actually somewhat plausible for FFG to implement it - they did change how range bonuses work in Epic, after all.

I like the brainstorming, but I think it is not going to be effective. When fighting perfect turrets I'm not attacking at range one. Doing that, even with autothrusters and out of arc, against a ship with Gunner or Luke is suicide. I'm always trying to be at range two or three and am still being consistently destroyed before chewing through those shields and hull. It also isn't as realistic as adding defense. The gun doesn't change because it isn't facing forward, the ability to dodge it should.

A better amendment to the core rules would be on page 11, Step 4, third paragraph. It reads:

"Also, if he is targeted at Range three by the attacker's primary weapon, he rolls one additional defence dice."

Simply add to that paragraph:

"Moreover, if he is targeted outside of the attacker's firing arc, he rolls one additional defense dice."

This has a much better chance of removing the disturbance in the force!

Sorry to be nit-picky, but it's ambiguous whether you want that bonus to apply to any out-of-arc attack or only out-of-arc attacks with primary weapons. I'd reword that as:

"Also, if he is targeted by the attacker's primary weapon while at Range 3 or outside the attacker's firing arc, he rolls one additional defense die."

I think we've successfully done a lot of theorizing today, but now we need people go out and try these proposed fixes to see what effect they really have on these ships (if any).

I'd rather not attempt to address PWT turrets by adding a green die, which does nothing to address the dice-fest they sometimes turn games into

I get enough of those already when engaging their unavoidable fire and would much rather have some kind of guaranteed return (such as auto-thrusters or removing red dice) for outplaying them.

It's a dogfighting game where no one in tournaments dogfights.

And yet, a lot of games I've observed with turrets involved maneuvering. Was it to get ships into arc, no. But that doesn't change the fact that they still had to maneuver. And hugging the edge is hardly an issue that only concerns turret primaries. I do remember some games where the players just went up and down the sides for a while before engaging.

And I really am getting tired of the moving of the goal posts to keep arguements valid. The meta is shifting, as Falcon hunters no longer are eating alive by Phantoms. Yes, the Phantom was why the Falcon rose up. It was a combo effect of Falcons being the easy way to fight Phantoms and Phantoms eating up Falcon's natural predators.

...

And the reason the "goalpost" has changed is because SOME thought Phantoms killing Swarms was the reason for the rise of the turrets. Since the nerf to the phantom has not resulted in a significant shift and turrets remain dominant, the hypothesis that "Phantoms > Swarms, therefore turrets" was clearly false. And yet, for "some reason", turrets do remain dominant, and therefore there must be a hypothesis that explains it. Hence, people still postulate on the reason why.

FALSE! Phantoms were > swarms. IGs are the new phantoms, thus, we still have turrets. Not in the respect that IGs are as OP as phantoms were, but in respect that IGs rock the socks of swarms and are a competitive against turrets. That plus the MoV thing and limited elimination cut-off = more turrets.

Yes, it takes skill to fly a turret well (and win), but not as much skill as someone who doesn't take a fat turret and wins, especially against a fat turret.

See how easy it is to just say stuff.

It's a dogfighting game where no one in tournaments dogfights.

And yet, a lot of games I've observed with turrets involved maneuvering. Was it to get ships into arc, no. But that doesn't change the fact that they still had to maneuver. And hugging the edge is hardly an issue that only concerns turret primaries. I do remember some games where the players just went up and down the sides for a while before engaging.

And I really am getting tired of the moving of the goal posts to keep arguements valid. The meta is shifting, as Falcon hunters no longer are eating alive by Phantoms. Yes, the Phantom was why the Falcon rose up. It was a combo effect of Falcons being the easy way to fight Phantoms and Phantoms eating up Falcon's natural predators.

...

And the reason the "goalpost" has changed is because SOME thought Phantoms killing Swarms was the reason for the rise of the turrets. Since the nerf to the phantom has not resulted in a significant shift and turrets remain dominant, the hypothesis that "Phantoms > Swarms, therefore turrets" was clearly false. And yet, for "some reason", turrets do remain dominant, and therefore there must be a hypothesis that explains it. Hence, people still postulate on the reason why.

FALSE! Phantoms were > swarms. IGs are the new phantoms, thus, we still have turrets. Not in the respect that IGs are as OP as phantoms were, but in respect that IGs rock the socks of swarms and are a competitive against turrets. That plus the MoV thing and limited elimination cut-off = more turrets.

Rebel swarms do pretty well against them.

Removing the primary weapon bonus outside of arc at R1 would be a good option also. Kind of like ships have done with Dash to stay in his "donut of doom" Soontir and Co. can then flank a turret at R1. Without repercussions.

I like it too. It's simple, elegant, and applies to any ship facing a primary turret, not just the dedicated arc-dodgers. And best of all, it's actually somewhat plausible for FFG to implement it - they did change how range bonuses work in Epic, after all.

I like the brainstorming, but I think it is not going to be effective. When fighting perfect turrets I'm not attacking at range one. Doing that, even with autothrusters and out of arc, against a ship with Gunner or Luke is suicide. I'm always trying to be at range two or three and am still being consistently destroyed before chewing through those shields and hull. It also isn't as realistic as adding defense. The gun doesn't change because it isn't facing forward, the ability to dodge it should.

A better amendment to the core rules would be on page 11, Step 4, third paragraph. It reads:

"Also, if he is targeted at Range three by the attacker's primary weapon, he rolls one additional defence dice."

Simply add to that paragraph:

"Moreover, if he is targeted outside of the attacker's firing arc, he rolls one additional defense dice."

This has a much better chance of removing the disturbance in the force!

Sorry to be nit-picky, but it's ambiguous whether you want that bonus to apply to any out-of-arc attack or only out-of-arc attacks with primary weapons. I'd reword that as:

"Also, if he is targeted by the attacker's primary weapon while at Range 3 or outside the attacker's firing arc, he rolls one additional defense die."

I think we've successfully done a lot of theorizing today, but now we need people go out and try these proposed fixes to see what effect they really have on these ships (if any).

If the defense bonus only applies to primary 360 weapons, then YT-2400s are unaffected (can't imagine someone flying it without Outrider title).

If there is no attack bonus at R1 out of arc with primary, the YT-2400 Outrider is again unaffected.

So it will only affect the VT-49 and the YT-1300. I think the errata would have to be something that applies to all out of arc shots. The other question is, should it affect all turrets or just large base turrets?

It's a dogfighting game where no one in tournaments dogfights.

And yet, a lot of games I've observed with turrets involved maneuvering. Was it to get ships into arc, no. But that doesn't change the fact that they still had to maneuver. And hugging the edge is hardly an issue that only concerns turret primaries. I do remember some games where the players just went up and down the sides for a while before engaging.

And I really am getting tired of the moving of the goal posts to keep arguements valid. The meta is shifting, as Falcon hunters no longer are eating alive by Phantoms. Yes, the Phantom was why the Falcon rose up. It was a combo effect of Falcons being the easy way to fight Phantoms and Phantoms eating up Falcon's natural predators.

I don't think this is as complex as everyone acts like it is.

Forward arc ships - must maneuver to place ships in arc, must maneuver to have ships in range, must maneuver to avoid opposing arcs, and must have good positioning for following rounds.

Turret ships - must maneuver to have ships in range, must maneuver to avoid opposing arcs and have good positioning for following rounds.

It is as plain as day that one has only 3 of the 4 requirements that the other does, and since the fourth requirement is not trivial, it is impossible for them to be equally difficult. Turrets are easier to fly, simple as that. (especially given that the large based turrets we have include some of the better dials in the game.)

And the reason the "goalpost" has changed is because SOME thought Phantoms killing Swarms was the reason for the rise of the turrets. Since the nerf to the phantom has not resulted in a significant shift and turrets remain dominant, the hypothesis that "Phantoms > Swarms, therefore turrets" was clearly false. And yet, for "some reason", turrets do remain dominant, and therefore there must be a hypothesis that explains it. Hence, people still postulate on the reason why.

Fel replaced Whisper as the ps9 arc-dodger that encourages turrets and preys on swarms. If we only had Han, Chewie and Lando like last year there would also be a lot less turrets in play.

It's a dogfighting game where no one in tournaments dogfights.

And yet, a lot of games I've observed with turrets involved maneuvering. Was it to get ships into arc, no. But that doesn't change the fact that they still had to maneuver. And hugging the edge is hardly an issue that only concerns turret primaries. I do remember some games where the players just went up and down the sides for a while before engaging.

And I really am getting tired of the moving of the goal posts to keep arguements valid. The meta is shifting, as Falcon hunters no longer are eating alive by Phantoms. Yes, the Phantom was why the Falcon rose up. It was a combo effect of Falcons being the easy way to fight Phantoms and Phantoms eating up Falcon's natural predators.

...

And the reason the "goalpost" has changed is because SOME thought Phantoms killing Swarms was the reason for the rise of the turrets. Since the nerf to the phantom has not resulted in a significant shift and turrets remain dominant, the hypothesis that "Phantoms > Swarms, therefore turrets" was clearly false. And yet, for "some reason", turrets do remain dominant, and therefore there must be a hypothesis that explains it. Hence, people still postulate on the reason why.

FALSE! Phantoms were > swarms. IGs are the new phantoms, thus, we still have turrets. Not in the respect that IGs are as OP as phantoms were, but in respect that IGs rock the socks of swarms and are a competitive against turrets. That plus the MoV thing and limited elimination cut-off = more turrets.

Again, this is completely backwards. Watch an IG vs Chewbo match some time. It's not even close to fair. The IG's shoot twice, so they often skip 3PO and evade tokens completely.

Chewbo isn't exactly a list one would consider top tier of the fat turrets. Hardly a fair comparison. Top tier fatties are HanZZZ Chirpy Fel, Super Dash plus maybe I'm missing one. I can see exactly why IGs wreck chewbo. No engines, and predictability. It utilizes one main archetype of the game, turrets. No arc dodging, and no jousting prowess. Not as many plays in the playbook for chewbo. The best fatty lists dip into more than one aspect. Unpredictability is the secret sauce of X-Wing and IGs have that in spades, especially with advanced sensors. The more options a squad has, the more a skilled player can win with it.

It's a dogfighting game where no one in tournaments dogfights.

And yet, a lot of games I've observed with turrets involved maneuvering. Was it to get ships into arc, no. But that doesn't change the fact that they still had to maneuver. And hugging the edge is hardly an issue that only concerns turret primaries. I do remember some games where the players just went up and down the sides for a while before engaging.

And I really am getting tired of the moving of the goal posts to keep arguements valid. The meta is shifting, as Falcon hunters no longer are eating alive by Phantoms. Yes, the Phantom was why the Falcon rose up. It was a combo effect of Falcons being the easy way to fight Phantoms and Phantoms eating up Falcon's natural predators.

...

And the reason the "goalpost" has changed is because SOME thought Phantoms killing Swarms was the reason for the rise of the turrets. Since the nerf to the phantom has not resulted in a significant shift and turrets remain dominant, the hypothesis that "Phantoms > Swarms, therefore turrets" was clearly false. And yet, for "some reason", turrets do remain dominant, and therefore there must be a hypothesis that explains it. Hence, people still postulate on the reason why.

FALSE! Phantoms were > swarms. IGs are the new phantoms, thus, we still have turrets. Not in the respect that IGs are as OP as phantoms were, but in respect that IGs rock the socks of swarms and are a competitive against turrets. That plus the MoV thing and limited elimination cut-off = more turrets.

Again, this is completely backwards. Watch an IG vs Chewbo match some time. It's not even close to fair. The IG's shoot twice, so they often skip 3PO and evade tokens completely.

Rebel swarms do pretty well against them.

yes and no

IG-88s completely crap on your normal turret set up because they get 2 damage negation (thruster + evade) and then just fart out 4 dice with gunner

but then you run into captive cheri with PTL soonts, and you get harder countered

I thought Chewie/Leebo were having good showings...

Removing the primary weapon bonus outside of arc at R1 would be a good option also. Kind of like ships have done with Dash to stay in his "donut of doom" Soontir and Co. can then flank a turret at R1. Without repercussions.

I like it too. It's simple, elegant, and applies to any ship facing a primary turret, not just the dedicated arc-dodgers. And best of all, it's actually somewhat plausible for FFG to implement it - they did change how range bonuses work in Epic, after all.

I like the brainstorming, but I think it is not going to be effective. When fighting perfect turrets I'm not attacking at range one. Doing that, even with autothrusters and out of arc, against a ship with Gunner or Luke is suicide. I'm always trying to be at range two or three and am still being consistently destroyed before chewing through those shields and hull. It also isn't as realistic as adding defense. The gun doesn't change because it isn't facing forward, the ability to dodge it should.

A better amendment to the core rules would be on page 11, Step 4, third paragraph. It reads:

"Also, if he is targeted at Range three by the attacker's primary weapon, he rolls one additional defence dice."

Simply add to that paragraph:

"Moreover, if he is targeted outside of the attacker's firing arc, he rolls one additional defense dice."

This has a much better chance of removing the disturbance in the force!

Sorry to be nit-picky, but it's ambiguous whether you want that bonus to apply to any out-of-arc attack or only out-of-arc attacks with primary weapons. I'd reword that as:

"Also, if he is targeted by the attacker's primary weapon while at Range 3 or outside the attacker's firing arc, he rolls one additional defense die."

I think we've successfully done a lot of theorizing today, but now we need people go out and try these proposed fixes to see what effect they really have on these ships (if any).

If the defense bonus only applies to primary 360 weapons, then YT-2400s are unaffected (can't imagine someone flying it without Outrider title).

If there is no attack bonus at R1 out of arc with primary, the YT-2400 Outrider is again unaffected.

So it will only affect the VT-49 and the YT-1300. I think the errata would have to be something that applies to all out of arc shots. The other question is, should it affect all turrets or just large base turrets?

Hate to quote myself, but it was pretty far back in the thread:

"A ship does not gain a range bonus when attacking a ship outside of its firing arc."

Buttcannon still works as intended. Game fixed. Drop the confetti. /thread

IMO this does many advantageous things for the game, without making turrets useless.

1: Rewards players for flanking/arc dodging turrets at R1, as opposed to punishing them

2. Encourages turret players to actually take facing into account while choosing their manuevers

3. Small roundabout buff to Firesprays, who retain the R1 bonus to their butt-cannons (Firesprays can still be arc-dodged, so it finally evens to two out a bit)

I've yet to hear a logical reason why this change wouldn't make the game better other than the typical "L2P, stop whining, ect". People were shouting "L2P" about Phantoms before their well-deserved nerf despite a Han winning Worlds and countless other tournies. On a side note, I'd also like to point out that many turrent-players were screaming bloody-murder about how AT's were going to ruin the game and make turrets useless, yet they only made the game more interesting.

Yes, it takes skill to fly a turret well (and win), but not as much skill as someone who doesn't take a fat turret and wins, especially against a fat turret.

A monkey could beat a turret with 4 B's.

See how easy it is to just say stuff.

Easy to say things, like: "turrets take a lot of skill", but results like the Regionals point towards a lot of truth about turrets.

I'd rather not attempt to address PWT turrets by adding a green die, which does nothing to address the dice-fest they sometimes turn games into

I get enough of those already when engaging their unavoidable fire and would much rather have some kind of guaranteed return (such as auto-thrusters or removing red dice) for outplaying them.

I'm shocked you don't trust green dice! ;-)

Another option forwould be a lower cost upgrade. Something like:

Speed Sensitive Stick (2 points, small base ships only) - When defending you may reroll one defense dice. If you do not have the boost action, assign a stress token at then end of combat phase.

We have enough large base upgrades. Time to boost the smaller guys.

Yes, it takes skill to fly a turret well (and win), but not as much skill as someone who doesn't take a fat turret and wins, especially against a fat turret.

A monkey could beat a turret with 4 B's.

See how easy it is to just say stuff.

Easy to say things, like: "turrets take a lot of skill", but results like the Regionals point towards a lot of truth about turrets.

So, you're saying those that won Regionals with turrets aren't good players?

Shouldn't they be great players if skill is the final factor in determining the winners of Regionals?

I do admit that a 4b list would be harder to make top 8 then a typical fat list. The B's won't be able to win by running away and shooting. The B's would have to play aggressive and try to block, guess right on the opponents moves. Fat lists typically play cat and mouse, boosting out of arches, staying alive until time is called. Like many has stated, if your playing against a turret you must killed the ship or lose. Knowing this puts you at a disadvantage of having to possibly make risky decisions that could win you the game or crash and burn. All the pressure is really on the non-turret team in this match up.

No one said the regionals winners are bad players - just that with 2 equally skilled players the turret has the advantage over the turret-less. Most regionals finals were turret vs. turret anyway.

Yes, it takes skill to fly a turret well (and win), but not as much skill as someone who doesn't take a fat turret and wins, especially against a fat turret.

A monkey could beat a turret with 4 B's.

See how easy it is to just say stuff.

Easy to say things, like: "turrets take a lot of skill", but results like the Regionals point towards a lot of truth about turrets.

I do think most of us would agree that turrets should not of been implemented in the way they were in a dog fighting based game. I've could of seen them at least putting in a required crew "Turret Operator" if you wanted to use the turret. Otherwise how is Han flying the ship and manning a turret at the same time, it doesn't makes thematic sense with how it currently is.

Every time people mention turrets, I think of Ion Cannon Turrets and Blaster Turrets and other turret upgrades. I don't think these upgrades are a problem at all, so whatever "fix" happens, I hope it doesn't have a detrimental effect on them.

I do think most of us would agree that turrets should not of been implemented in the way they were in a dog fighting based game. I've could of seen them at least putting in a required crew "Turret Operator" if you wanted to use the turret. Otherwise how is Han flying the ship and manning a turret at the same time, it doesn't makes thematic sense with how it currently is.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/AG-2G_quad_laser_cannon

The cannons could also be activated by remote-control, as well as avoid hitting the pilot via a transponder. Initially, when Calrissian had the ship, this was accomplished via auxiliary foot pedals in the cockpit. Solo removed these pedals in favor of trackball controllers, due to their awkward design as well as Chewbacca needing leg room.

Let's not start talking about "thematic sense".

I do think most of us would agree that turrets should not of been implemented in the way they were in a dog fighting based game. I've could of seen them at least putting in a required crew "Turret Operator" if you wanted to use the turret. Otherwise how is Han flying the ship and manning a turret at the same time, it doesn't makes thematic sense with how it currently is.

Completely agree! Equip the first gunner just to shoot out of arc (not to get a second shot) or require a focus to shoot like the blaster turret. Never made sense to me either.

Every time people mention turrets, I think of Ion Cannon Turrets and Blaster Turrets and other turret upgrades. I don't think these upgrades are a problem at all, so whatever "fix" happens, I hope it doesn't have a detrimental effect on them.

Those are secondary weapons we have a problem with primary weapons.

I do think the turret upgrades on the Y-wing, HWK etc are fine and pretty restrictive already with limited range, requiring a focus etc. It's the primary turrets that was vastly overlooked during the design stage.