Rule FAQ: When a Primary Weapon Turret is attacking a defender that is out of the attacker's forward firing arc, the attacker rolls one less attack die.

-OR-

Rule FAQ: When a Primary Weapon Turret is attacking a defender that is out of the attacker's forward firing arc, the attacker may not use Focus tokens to modify the attack..

And thus, you eliminate them from competitive play.

Realistically - there is no true 'forward firing arc' for the turret - wherever the gun is pointing IS by definition the arc

*sigh*

Realistically - there is no true 'forward firing arc' for the turret - wherever the gun is pointing IS by definition the arc

*sigh*

That's not how it is via the rules, though.

Realistically - there is no true 'forward firing arc' for the turret - wherever the gun is pointing IS by definition the arc

*sigh*

Matters however for Tactician. If this were true I'd run a Decimator with 3 tacticians on it and just gimp one ship every turn.

Realistically - there is no true 'forward firing arc' for the turret - wherever the gun is pointing IS by definition the arc

*sigh*

That's just not true at all.

I'm simply saying - that in a real-world scenario (yeah, silly I get it) - the entire point of the turret is to remove the orientation of the craft from the equation in getting a firing solution / line of sight

Nerfing on that basis is silly but have at it if you want

Rule FAQ: When a Primary Weapon Turret is attacking a defender that is out of the attacker's forward firing arc, the attacker rolls one less attack die.

-OR-

Rule FAQ: When a Primary Weapon Turret is attacking a defender that is out of the attacker's forward firing arc, the attacker may not use Focus tokens to modify the attack..

One word!

Outrider?

I think the point, as i read it was that a falcons turret without some one to crew it would be tricky to aim unless you had it firing directly ahead (no focus) or it was on some sort of auto system (less dice)

You could say 'cant use focus unless a crew slot is filled' but then you're back to square one as fat hans usually have gunner.

Pwt isn't the problem. Large-point heavy defense ships just happen to have a large fraction that are turrets. Both of those ideas would pretty much instantly eliminate them from play and make their generics(and poor Eaden)worse than a pre-fix tempest.

I'm simply saying - that in a real-world scenario (yeah, silly I get it) - the entire point of the turret is to remove the orientation of the craft from the equation in getting a firing solution / line of sight

Nerfing on that basis is silly but have at it if you want

Rule FAQ: When a Primary Weapon Turret is attacking a defender that is out of the attacker's forward firing arc, the attacker rolls one less attack die.

-OR-

Rule FAQ: When a Primary Weapon Turret is attacking a defender that is out of the attacker's forward firing arc, the attacker may not use Focus tokens to modify the attack..

So you are doing nothing to hinder SuperDash and the Outrider but you are removing any other YT-2400, ORS, and the K-Wing from contention and seriously hindering the Decimators and named Falcons.

The second may hinder modification via Focus but there are plenty of other ways to modify attacks.

I'm simply saying - that in a real-world scenario (yeah, silly I get it) - the entire point of the turret is to remove the orientation of the craft from the equation in getting a firing solution / line of sight

Nerfing on that basis is silly but have at it if you want

Really? That's the line in the sand you're drawing for this game of non-Newtonian starship combat using almost solely point-and-shoot weapons and that's played on a flat 2D plane starring two distinct flavours of space-wizard?

Surely three flavours of space wizard now we've got S&V?

I'm simply saying - that in a real-world scenario (yeah, silly I get it) - the entire point of the turret is to remove the orientation of the craft from the equation in getting a firing solution / line of sight

Nerfing on that basis is silly but have at it if you want

who gives two ***** about a "real-world scenario"? Certainly not anyone defending the current implementation of X-wing, which adheres about as well to "real-world scenarios" as the OT did to space physics

More importantly though, this is a game and a game set around maneuvering with a mechanic that inexplicable just butchers it out of the equation for one's opponent unless they invested in an incredibly specific upgrade that had to be introduced in order to keep a ship solely dependent on maneuvers from being shoved out by a single ship that ignored their maneuvers to a hilarious degree.

Regardless of how competitive, having to play against a PWT is a slog and a dumbed down experience since it's basically just the same game minus the intricacies of having to care for your faving-- something even Firesprays have to worry about. The ideal solution would be to send out new bases and force turret orientation to be a player controlled decision (split the base into four firing arcs, before dials are revealed declare which arc the turret is facing and mark it with a token--possibly with the restriction of only being able to rotate to adjacent arcs in order to promote more forethought and less "I'm a turret so I'll just pick any target at a whim") but since that'd be a logistical nightmare, just introducing some kind of detriment to shooting outside the firing arc would at provide some small benefit for anyone with the misfortune of having to fly against these dice farting bovines.

I hardly threw a gauntlet down - I think I was just responding to yet another turret gripe / nerf with some attempt at reasoning why it isn't logical in the 'lore' or universe of the situation. To that, I think Gadge offered a good counter to my comment in comment #9

sorry didn't mean to make it personal or to engage in a duel

just meant the first line to be a direct response, the rest is just my hate for the game mechanic

I'm simply saying - that in a real-world scenario (yeah, silly I get it) - the entire point of the turret is to remove the orientation of the craft from the equation in getting a firing solution / line of sight

Nerfing on that basis is silly but have at it if you want

who gives two ***** about a "real-world scenario"? Certainly not anyone defending the current implementation of X-wing, which adheres about as well to "real-world scenarios" as the OT did to space physics

More importantly though, this is a game and a game set around maneuvering with a mechanic that inexplicable just butchers it out of the equation for one's opponent unless they invested in an incredibly specific upgrade that had to be introduced in order to keep a ship solely dependent on maneuvers from being shoved out by a single ship that ignored their maneuvers to a hilarious degree.

Regardless of how competitive, having to play against a PWT is a slog and a dumbed down experience since it's basically just the same game minus the intricacies of having to care for your faving-- something even Firesprays have to worry about. The ideal solution would be to send out new bases and force turret orientation to be a player controlled decision (split the base into four firing arcs, before dials are revealed declare which arc the turret is facing and mark it with a token--possibly with the restriction of only being able to rotate to adjacent arcs in order to promote more forethought and less "I'm a turret so I'll just pick any target at a whim") but since that'd be a logistical nightmare, just introducing some kind of detriment to shooting outside the firing arc would at provide some small benefit for anyone with the misfortune of having to fly against these dice farting bovines.

I can entirely get behind choosing your turret orientation as part of your movement prior to attack

No offense taken!

Just give the target an extra green die and be done with it.

Autothrusters become stronger, and other ships can mitigate more damage.

Personally I don't think a nerf to PWT is necessary. I think their current success might be a direct result of people not flying enough lists to counter them. Usually it requires more ships and everyone is wary of doing so due to MoV. Which is ironic as those two ship lists will be more likely to lose a ship in those games, simultaneously fixing the MoV issue.

When you're going up 2v2, most likely the first side to lose a ship will get tabled, which makes 100-0 wins more common.

Yeah i think it would be much fairer to work out victory on 'hits taken' rather than a ship being either 'alive' or 'dead' and nothing in between.

In our casual games if we run out of time we tot up the amount of damage received (shields and hull), however received the most lost if its not clear.

It does make abilities like r2d2 more useful but then we rarely have to use this as we dont usually run out of time.

Lmao at generic Yt's trying to ever hurt something with autothrusters lmao

Just give the target an extra green die and be done with it.

...

that's basically just the same as doing nothing then, given their reliability

would much rather get the out-of-arc benefit for AT on every other ship. It gives you some measure of garantee and makes it less of a dicefest

also, to anyone suffering from the misfortune of having to play against these tubs of lard and dice before an errata, there is one way to get them to care about their facing: ion. Being on a large base is basically their only weakness (Since even their cost just ends up being a benefit given m.o.v), so locking the maneuvers on a careless PWT can force him to interact with unpleasant space peanuts or even the most horrifying obstacle of all: the table-edge.

I heartily recommend BTL-A4 Y-wings, because normal ICTs just don't have the punch needed to outdice PWTs and even just getting one damage off of the primary attack will double a Y's damage output. If running rebels, putting r3-a2 on one of them even gives you some reliable counterplay against soonts

Run them at least in pairs, both because of the double ion for large bases rule (which is necessary, given how ****** large bases would be if one ion did it) and because PWTs will basically eat a Y-wing in 2-3 shots since they don't give two ***** about their facing and have more than enough dice mods even without actions. You can also run a pair of them (one with r3-a2, one with r2 generic) and r4-d6 Biggs (+25 points, tactician B-wing?) to give yourself game against swarms and mini-swarms (Force range 3 shots on biggs) and against aggressors (r4-d6 is nothing if not an HLC soak).

Been experimenting with them for a while and have been pleasantly surprised Currently running 2 with a Luke to counter mini-swarms (and basically act as mini-corran) and a prototype pilot (I'm just too fond of the coolest blocker in the game; also I can't play without at least one maneuverable ship )

Wierdest decision in the game giving the ORS less firepower than any other pilot.

Its the only ship i can think of where the basic profile is actually different depending on who is flying it.

Just give the target an extra green die and be done with it.

...

that's basically just the same as doing nothing then, given their reliability

would much rather get the out-of-arc benefit for AT on every other ship. It gives you some measure of garantee and makes it less of a dicefest

also, to anyone suffering from the misfortune of having to play against these tubs of lard and dice before an errata, there is one way to get them to care about their facing: ion. Being on a large base is basically their only weakness (Since even their cost just ends up being a benefit given m.o.v), so locking the maneuvers on a careless PWT can force him to interact with unpleasant space peanuts or even the most horrifying obstacle of all: the table-edge.

I heartily recommend BTL-A4 Y-wings, because normal ICTs just don't have the punch needed to outdice PWTs and even just getting one damage off of the primary attack will double a Y's damage output. If running rebels, putting r3-a2 on one of them even gives you some reliable counterplay against soonts

Run them at least in pairs, both because of the double ion for large bases rule (which is necessary, given how ****** large bases would be if one ion did it) and because PWTs will basically eat a Y-wing in 2-3 shots since they don't give two ***** about their facing and have more than enough dice mods even without actions. You can also run a pair of them (one with r3-a2, one with r2 generic) and r4-d6 Biggs (+25 points, tactician B-wing?) to give yourself game against swarms and mini-swarms (Force range 3 shots on biggs) and against aggressors (r4-d6 is nothing if not an HLC soak).

Been experimenting with them for a while and have been pleasantly surprised Currently running 2 with a Luke to counter mini-swarms (and basically act as mini-corran) and a prototype pilot (I'm just too fond of the coolest blocker in the game; also I can't play without at least one maneuverable ship )

Kind of late to give everyone autothrusters. Would waste having the card.

See, there are counters to turrets. But nobody is flying them. If more people flew lists like yours, they wouldn't be such a problem.

Turrets hate ions and stress. If you really want to slow down that turret tag him with stress and now he will either green or move without a boost action. Then you can close in for some damage.

I'm simply saying - that in a real-world scenario (yeah, silly I get it) - the entire point of the turret is to remove the orientation of the craft from the equation in getting a firing solution / line of sight

Nerfing on that basis is silly but have at it if you want

who gives two ***** about a "real-world scenario"? Certainly not anyone defending the current implementation of X-wing, which adheres about as well to "real-world scenarios" as the OT did to space physics

More importantly though, this is a game and a game set around maneuvering with a mechanic that inexplicable just butchers it out of the equation for one's opponent unless they invested in an incredibly specific upgrade that had to be introduced in order to keep a ship solely dependent on maneuvers from being shoved out by a single ship that ignored their maneuvers to a hilarious degree.

Regardless of how competitive, having to play against a PWT is a slog and a dumbed down experience since it's basically just the same game minus the intricacies of having to care for your faving-- something even Firesprays have to worry about. The ideal solution would be to send out new bases and force turret orientation to be a player controlled decision (split the base into four firing arcs, before dials are revealed declare which arc the turret is facing and mark it with a token--possibly with the restriction of only being able to rotate to adjacent arcs in order to promote more forethought and less "I'm a turret so I'll just pick any target at a whim") but since that'd be a logistical nightmare, just introducing some kind of detriment to shooting outside the firing arc would at provide some small benefit for anyone with the misfortune of having to fly against these dice farting bovines.

The really funny thing is that in the movies, it is clear the Falcon has a top and a bottom turret capable of firing at different targets simultaneously. So if we were to use that as a basis, a YT with 2 crew should get to fire its PWT twice every round and it would not be limited to just one target either. Wouldn't that be fun.

Thank goodness FFG put a little thought into not making turret weapons too powerful, huh?

Change the boost mechanics, use the small side of the 1 forward template and if boosting to the left put the 1 bank to the right of the nubs and vice versa or boosting to the right. Try it and see the difference it makes. Do that and then make auto thrusters small ships only and you'll have a very even playing field and not a ton of people crying.