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.

Being a good build and being an easy build are not related.

Hodge-podge. An "Easy" build can contribute a number of factors that can also help the build be "good". Less mental drain on the player. More forgiving of mistakes. More able to focus on future turns rather than just the current one. Less factors (such as arc) to consider.

While being "easy" doesn't necessarily make a build "good", and all "good" builds will not be "easy", there is certainly a positive relationship between the two. If two builds are equal in firepower, durability, maneuverability, etc with one being easy and the other being hard, the easy one will be at an advantage for the reasons I've listed above.

Easy doesn't necessarily equal good, but they are related.

This no quoting issue is really starting to irritate me, anyway, addressing the "Han isn't OP claim"

Anything in competitive gaming with a <50% win rate is considered strong in the current meta, obviously. Anything with a <60% win rate is overpowered. Where do I get my numbers? I used a 60 million player sample known as League of Legends. Anything with a <60% win rate gets toned down within a week or so.

Now I realize changes that quickly are impossible with a tabletop game, however it is impossible to look at results from regionals across the world, and seeing that most top 8s are made up of at least 5-6 turrets, and still argue that turrets are balanced. To even make the cut you need to go 5-0 or 4-1 with a good MoV (another thing turret lists are excellent at securing) Turrets are winning more than 60% of their games, and it is not due to superior pilot skill. A 360 degree fire arc takes away one of the key concepts of the game - arc dodging. The turret player still gets to play around your arc, but you can't dodge his if you want to return fire.

I don't get this argument.

Turrets are part of the game. They cost a lot, and they usually come with low agility, meaning that you can focus fire on them and you can take advantage of range, actions and vulnerability to quickly destroy them. And they're half of the opponent's fleet. They're easier to fly, but that doesn't mean that a well flown and well equipped squad can't demolish them. Probably the fat Falcon is too strong in and of itself, but that is not a turret issue, it's a combination issue that could be addessed. And, thematically, what did you expect? It's a Falcon, it's not going to go down easily.

In the case of the above argument,

There are TONS of ships with tl

There are TWO pwts on large bases (outrider is not one of them).

The two are not comparable, regardless whether or not pwts are op

Also, being in the game doesn't really mean much. Phantom decloaks were in the game and they later got replaced with something more reasonable. Large ship brolls got changed, formerly up ships got buffed...

Personally don't care why pwts get changed so long as I finally get some counterplay that isn't just bbbbz or throwing dice at them

This no quoting issue is really starting to irritate me, anyway, addressing the "Han isn't OP claim"

Anything in competitive gaming with a <50% win rate is considered strong in the current meta, obviously. Anything with a <60% win rate is overpowered. Where do I get my numbers? I used a 60 million player sample known as League of Legends. Anything with a <60% win rate gets toned down within a week or so.

Now I realize changes that quickly are impossible with a tabletop game, however it is impossible to look at results from regionals across the world, and seeing that most top 8s are made up of at least 5-6 turrets, and still argue that turrets are balanced. To even make the cut you need to go 5-0 or 4-1 with a good MoV (another thing turret lists are excellent at securing) Turrets are winning more than 60% of their games, and it is not due to superior pilot skill. A 360 degree fire arc takes away one of the key concepts of the game - arc dodging. The turret player still gets to play around your arc, but you can't dodge his if you want to return fire.

That's not far from saying that since 80% of the builds had a ship that could target lock, target lock is overpowered.

I don't get this argument.

Turrets are part of the game. They cost a lot, and they usually come with low agility, meaning that you can focus fire on them and you can take advantage of range, actions and vulnerability to quickly destroy them. And they're half of the opponent's fleet. They're easier to fly, but that doesn't mean that a well flown and well equipped squad can't demolish them. Probably the fat Falcon is too strong in and of itself, but that is not a turret issue, it's a combination issue that could be addessed. And, thematically, what did you expect? It's a Falcon, it's not going to go down easily.

And I don't get your argument. If all you have to do is "focus fire on them and you can take advantage of range, actions and vulnerability to quickly destroy them", then surely top tier players know this. Why then do we see so many turrets at the top of the tournament field?

The perception is a two ship build would be easy to destroy with a swarm or squad of ships in 60 minute games. Throw everything at the 60 point ship, destroy it quick then take care of the last ship with your remaining squad. But as it turns out perception is not reality.

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.

Because if this game needs anything it's making more ships take longer to kill. The main gripe I hear about these fat lists is they take too long to kill in relation to the time limit provided. Your "boost" will only exacerbate this issue. We don't need to put an autothruster type ability on everything...

I'm going to say this, Turrets on large base ships are not the problem. It is the FATNESS.

I recall a certain 2014 Store Championship in Poland(it was at the start of season), where the winning list was Han+Wedge

*Bydgoszcz, Poland- March 2: (20) Rebel {scum} [Han+]

Han Solo (Push the Limit, Gunner, Chewbacca, Millenium Falcon, Concussion Missiles)

Wedge Antilies (Push the Limit, R2 astromech, Engine Upgrade)

I faced this list twice at my SC killed Han and Wedge was at 1 hull first game. Second game, top 4, killed wedge and had Han down to 1 hull.

I lost but not by much and I had only been playing for 3 months at this time against a seasoned veteran.

My list was

Saber Sqdrn, PTL x2

Academy Pilot x3

Night Beast

Han was overweight, but not fat. The action economy on these fat ships are insane, or the lack of using actions to net an action. Stacking multiples of the following is allowing Fat ships to be successful by being All-in-One ships Offense, Deffence, Tank and Arc Dodgers.

Han Solo-Target Lock all dice

Predator-Target Lock 1 or 2 dice

C-3PO-free evade token

Recon Specialist- 2 focus tokens

Gunner/IG-88B- Second attack if first fails. Huge benefit for 2 ship build.

Others without details,

Lone Wolf

Kyle Katarn

Isaard

Fire control System

Edit: Of course this economy in actions allows fat ships to use Engine Upgrade.

I just finished a 2 on 2 ship game where I killed one of my opponent's ships early, so I quickly had a 2-1 advantage with not much damage to any of mine yet. However his other ship was chewie with 3po and title, so while I did end up winning, all those guaranteed evades made it closer than I would have liked by the end.

Imagine if my favorite ship the firespray could get 2-3 guaranteed evades a turn like the falcon. Man would that be sweet. Instead I often feel at a disadvantage against falcons since even though I can take an evade and have 1 more agility, I'm still likely to take damage faster than the falcon.

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?

Did you not read what I wrote? I said that it takes skill to win with a fat turret. It takes more skill to win without a fat turret. Just taking a fat turret doesn't allow you to win, but if the players are even, the one with the fat turret will usually come out ahead. The proof is in the results. You think all those people who didn't take a fat turret aren't good? Or you think that good players only take fat turrets. If that's the case, why do you think it's so? The OP is someone who did well with a fat turret and said that something is wrong here. The OP is saying that fat turrets have an advantage.

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.

Because if this game needs anything it's making more ships take longer to kill. The main gripe I hear about these fat lists is they take too long to kill in relation to the time limit provided. Your "boost" will only exacerbate this issue. We don't need to put an autothruster type ability on everything...

how would making things PWTs shoot out of arc harder to kill make PWTs harder to kill?

I'm going to say this, Turrets on large base ships are not the problem. It is the FATNESS.

This is another issue, but I believe it's a little bit of a number of things (which has been mentioned and re-mentioned in this thread numerous times already), but this is an important portion of the issue that needs to be remembered. When you have ships that have as many upgrade slots as the Decimators, YTs and IGs have, you are bound to find insane combos that just make the ship exponentially better. And with things like C3PO and Ysanne, these ships (YT-1300 and Decimator more specifically), which (apparently only) downfall is supposed to be their lack of agility, is covered. I would be REALLY interested to see the game without these types of upgrades.

From games, books, and the way missiles work in real life, I've never understood why rockets/missiles have to be in the same range as primary weapon attacks. In the game, it's usually even closer when you consider you have to have a previous target lock. Seeing as you also only have 1 shot with them, wouldn't it make more sense to at least be able to shoot at range 4, then close the gap and engage with primary weapons? Soften up that fatty before you get within return fire range

If you give missiles a longer range, you get Vietnam instead of WWII. No more dogfights. 6 Z-95 release their ordnance and have either won or lost. Just roll the dice. Boring to the extreme.

I have not much hope for ordnance. They way to go was giving it an advantage versus huge ships, fixing epic and ordnance at the same time. FFG knows, there is a problem, but they don't get it.

First try at fixing: Munitions failsafe. Did exactly nothing. Extra munitions is, as even the name signals, more of the same.

And advanced power creep on ordnance is not a fix. We need a fix for the proton torpedo (Remember proton torpedo? It was in the movies, the original movies that is), not a new super missile, that will make other ordnance even more obsolete.

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.

Because if this game needs anything it's making more ships take longer to kill. The main gripe I hear about these fat lists is they take too long to kill in relation to the time limit provided. Your "boost" will only exacerbate this issue. We don't need to put an autothruster type ability on everything...

how would making things PWTs shoot out of arc harder to kill make PWTs harder to kill?

Thats not what I am inferring. What it appears he is trying to do is up the durability of every small ship in the game. One of the main points of contention I see around here is how difficult a fat turret is to kill in relation to the amount of time a round of tourney play has. How is making every other ship in the game harder to kill going to fix the problem of not having enough time to kill every ship? You are essentially giving every small ship in the game a minor version of autothrusters...how is that going to fix the issue of time to table?

I dont play in many tournies and couldnt give two craps about the fabled "meta." My group feels the same way, thus we dont have the same issue with fat ships because we rarely, if ever, see them...but this particular upgrade would have a negative effect on the casual game by essentially making ALL small ships much harder to kill AND negating hull upgrade, shield upgrade, and stealth device for no reason other than "competitive people think fat ships are too hard to kill...so small ships should be harder to kill too." And these are the same people who often lament that they dont have the time required to kill said fat ships...

Thats how I see it anyway. This upgrade does more harm than good even with its stress limitation.

From games, books, and the way missiles work in real life, I've never understood why rockets/missiles have to be in the same range as primary weapon attacks. In the game, it's usually even closer when you consider you have to have a previous target lock. Seeing as you also only have 1 shot with them, wouldn't it make more sense to at least be able to shoot at range 4, then close the gap and engage with primary weapons? Soften up that fatty before you get within return fire range

If you give missiles a longer range, you get Vietnam instead of WWII. No more dogfights. 6 Z-95 release their ordnance and have either won or lost. Just roll the dice. Boring to the extreme.

I have not much hope for ordnance. They way to go was giving it an advantage versus huge ships, fixing epic and ordnance at the same time. FFG knows, there is a problem, but they don't get it.

First try at fixing: Munitions failsafe. Did exactly nothing. Extra munitions is, as even the name signals, more of the same.

And advanced power creep on ordnance is not a fix. We need a fix for the proton torpedo (Remember proton torpedo? It was in the movies, the original movies that is), not a new super missile, that will make other ordnance even more obsolete.

Seems like you bought in the same myth that the Pentagon did in the Vietnam era when NVAF aces were able to gun down USAF F-4 Phantoms in their Frescos (which had only guns and were sub sonic). Lessons learned is that the gun is still viable in a air-to-air dogfight especially when it gets up close.

However as for fixing torpedoes and missiles is completely off on a tangent and even if they were better it would not fix the issue with these point fortresses dominating the meta. As I said before one attack weapons will only be good in a "damage race" scenario. For those who do not know a damage race is strictly jousting values where both ships keep going at it until one dies. Have a one-time-use power attack can help you pull ahead in the joust or simply make up for a bad roll.

But we don't have jousters and this damage race. The biggest defense we have is Arc Dodgers, and with Arc dodgers it is all or nothing. Either they get shot at take 4 damage and die, or they don't get shot at all. With arc dodgers the race is not there, the goal is to trap them in multiple firing arcs and hit them with the whole squadron to the point where they are gone and out of the game allowing for you to focus on the rest of the opponents list.

Arc dodgers act as the buffer for the point fortresses, as said in one of the podcast (I forgot which one) Whisper is the bodyguard of Han. If you focus on an "alpha strike" you won't catch the arc dodgers. The catch-22 is that if you focus on the arc-dodgers, you will never have enough firepower to take down the point fortress before the 1 hour time limit. And before you can destroy one of those big ships, it would have already picked off one or two giving them the victory.

Giving missile and torpedo weapons a buff will NOT stop point fortresses from dominating the meta. End of story!

I think the simplest solution would be to just institute partial points scoring. If you drop a ship to less than half of its total hull/shields you get half points for it. I think this would seriously hamper the fat turret lists in the tournament scene since right now they have a pretty considerable scoring advantage.

Now if I were to do X-wing 2.0 I would do away with primary turrets altogether and just have those ships have the turret secondary weapon slot. Not only would this allow you to impose range and action restrictions on turrets, but it would also streamline the rules and make it so all the turrets are represented by the same game mechanic.

And I don't get your argument. If all you have to do is "focus fire on them and you can take advantage of range, actions and vulnerability to quickly destroy them", then surely top tier players know this. Why then do we see so many turrets at the top of the tournament field?

In the case of the above argument,

There are TONS of ships with tl

There are TWO pwts on large bases (outrider is not one of them).

The two are not comparable, regardless whether or not pwts are op

Also, being in the game doesn't really mean much. Phantom decloaks were in the game and they later got replaced with something more reasonable. Large ship brolls got changed, formerly up ships got buffed...

Personally don't care why pwts get changed so long as I finally get some counterplay that isn't just bbbbz or throwing dice at them

I don't know if you guys already had suggestions, but this should be treated carefully. I don't want to see the falcon being rendered useless, and now a small ship with turrets is also coming. Why is the Outrider not one of them?

...

It's evident that players prefer being sure to always fire rather than having multiple attacks on different fronts. If you guys are complaining about turrets, why don't you complain about tie fighter swarms? They are the other third of the lists and they're doable because each ship is worth only 12 points. How come turrets are overpowered but tie fighters are not? the 60% rule still applies here.

...

Mine was an hyperbole. Still, they're a much bigger part of the game than decloacks and brolls. It can't be fixed as easily.

I don't know if you guys already had suggestions, but this should be treated carefully. I don't want to see the falcon being rendered useless, and now a small ship with turrets is also coming. Why is the Outrider not one of them?

Well as of now TIE swarms have been torn apart by Large Arc dodgers and arc dodger + turret lists. The TIE swarm has apparently lost their throne in the regionals. So you won't be hearing many complaints about losing to swarms.

However as I said before turrets in general are not the problem. If they were then tournament winning list will be nothing other than Y-wings, HWK-290, ORS, Eardon Vigil and Patrol Leaders. You wouldn't see Buzz Droids/ Brobots (IG_88 B&C/D) , you wouldn't see Soontir & RAC, Whisper & RAC or Corran & Dash. The big problem is well point fortresses in the form of 2 ship builds and how they play in the MOV meta. Now for players like me with a 30% win ration MOV doesn't mean anything to me as I would be eliminated far before that became a factor. However with those that are contenders for the Top 8 MOV plays a BIG factor. If the Bro Bots are able to take out 2 12 point ships and still be on the table they have won even if you still have 6 ships on the table. If you are running a BBBZZ list and your Zs and 1 B dies but you have not killed the 75 point fat turret ship then you have lost. Keeping 70+ points on the table at the end of the game has become the deciding factor in premier events.

"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

Poor fix. The turrets are not too strong in firepower/cost, so there should not be any nerf to that.

Bar them access to EU that is more of a fix making sense.

In the case of the above argument,

There are TONS of ships with tl

There are TWO pwts on large bases (outrider is not one of them).

The two are not comparable, regardless whether or not pwts are op

Also, being in the game doesn't really mean much. Phantom decloaks were in the game and they later got replaced with something more reasonable. Large ship brolls got changed, formerly up ships got buffed...

Personally don't care why pwts get changed so long as I finally get some counterplay that isn't just bbbbz or throwing dice at them

Mine was an hyperbole. Still, they're a much bigger part of the game than decloacks and brolls. It can't be fixed as easily.

I don't know if you guys already had suggestions, but this should be treated carefully. I don't want to see the falcon being rendered useless, and now a small ship with turrets is also coming. Why is the Outrider not one of them?

outrider's a 2ndary weapon turret (until you hit munitions failure, ofc, but then you're stuck with a horrible 2 dice primary...which the K also packs)

2ndary weapon turrets don't get the range 1 damage bonus, the mangler is very damage inefficient, and the HLC has a doughnut-hole it can't shoot through

In the case of the above argument,

There are TONS of ships with tl

There are TWO pwts on large bases (outrider is not one of them).

The two are not comparable, regardless whether or not pwts are op

Also, being in the game doesn't really mean much. Phantom decloaks were in the game and they later got replaced with something more reasonable. Large ship brolls got changed, formerly up ships got buffed...

Personally don't care why pwts get changed so long as I finally get some counterplay that isn't just bbbbz or throwing dice at them

Mine was an hyperbole. Still, they're a much bigger part of the game than decloacks and brolls. It can't be fixed as easily.

I don't know if you guys already had suggestions, but this should be treated carefully. I don't want to see the falcon being rendered useless, and now a small ship with turrets is also coming. Why is the Outrider not one of them?

outrider's a 2ndary weapon turret (until you hit munitions failure, ofc, but then you're stuck with a horrible 2 dice primary...which the K also packs)

2ndary weapon turrets don't get the range 1 damage bonus, the mangler is very damage inefficient, and the HLC has a doughnut-hole it can't shoot through

"Horrible". And then you complain about turrets.

What you are complaining about are fat falcons.

In the case of the above argument,

There are TONS of ships with tl

There are TWO pwts on large bases (outrider is not one of them).

The two are not comparable, regardless whether or not pwts are op

Also, being in the game doesn't really mean much. Phantom decloaks were in the game and they later got replaced with something more reasonable. Large ship brolls got changed, formerly up ships got buffed...

Personally don't care why pwts get changed so long as I finally get some counterplay that isn't just bbbbz or throwing dice at them

Mine was an hyperbole. Still, they're a much bigger part of the game than decloacks and brolls. It can't be fixed as easily.

I don't know if you guys already had suggestions, but this should be treated carefully. I don't want to see the falcon being rendered useless, and now a small ship with turrets is also coming. Why is the Outrider not one of them?

outrider's a 2ndary weapon turret (until you hit munitions failure, ofc, but then you're stuck with a horrible 2 dice primary...which the K also packs)

2ndary weapon turrets don't get the range 1 damage bonus, the mangler is very damage inefficient, and the HLC has a doughnut-hole it can't shoot through

"Horrible". And then you complain about turrets.

What you are complaining about are fat falcons.

no, I am complaining about primary weapon turrets

sure, the YT-2400 technically has one, but when you bring outrider you can't even use it (you essentially replace it with your cannon).

the difference between 2-dice and 3-dice in this game is ridiculous, and currently we have two 3-dice PWTs in the yt-1300 and deci. FFG did a great job limiting a sh*tty game mechanic on the yt-2400 by making it horribly inefficient, and making it an actual benefit to arc-dodge to non-titled yt-2400s that pack cannons, The K-wing is very much in the same vein.

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?

Did you not read what I wrote? I said that it takes skill to win with a fat turret. It takes more skill to win without a fat turret. Just taking a fat turret doesn't allow you to win, but if the players are even, the one with the fat turret will usually come out ahead. The proof is in the results. You think all those people who didn't take a fat turret aren't good? Or you think that good players only take fat turrets. If that's the case, why do you think it's so? The OP is someone who did well with a fat turret and said that something is wrong here. The OP is saying that fat turrets have an advantage.

I think it's very clear that really good players are currently more likely to take a turret.

Just change Engine for Large Ships so that you use the 1-Forward's long + flat edge when bosting forward.

e.g. place it forward-right on the large base when boosting to the right, and you've guessed it, forward left when boosting left.

Oh and remove C3PO from the game altogether.

Just change Engine for Large Ships so that you use the 1-Forward's long + flat edge when bosting forward.

e.g. place it forward-right on the large base when boosting to the right, and you've guessed it, forward left when boosting left.

Oh and remove C3PO from the game altogether.

This.

Or just remove EU from large bases completely...

I think it's very clear that really good players are currently more likely to take a turret.

Let's focus on this for a minute. It is very clear that good players are taking fat turrets. These are people who know the game well. They are very competitive. They will go with what wins. Why are so many good players taking fat turrets? If such a large percentage of good players are taking fat turrets, why is that? Surely, it isn't just preference.