Seems like the only PWT problems are the combination of high PS, Boost action, 360 firing, 60 minute rounds, and MOV.

High PS + Boost allows you to arc dodge, the 360 firing allows you to arc dodge without severe shooting repercussions, 60 minute rounds means large numbers of ships + less actual turns than needed to effectively block a large base ship AND kill it, and MOV means that high defense, high points ships win more games.

Its a far more complicated issue than simply "PWTs are too good" because there is a perfect storm of conditions that favor fat ships in general.

As much as I want dumb fatties nerfed into oblivion so that we can go back to playing normal lists with more than 2 ships, think of the poor ORS and the K Wing.

Partial points would go a long way. I find there is a good 2-3 turns where a fattie with only a few health left has to be chased down so I can actually get points for it at the cost of having to ignore other things I may have good shots on.

If a fattie with 1 health wants to run away in a partial point MOV system, be my guest.

As much as I want dumb fatties nerfed into oblivion so that we can go back to playing normal lists with more than 2 ships, think of the poor ORS and the K Wing.

Partial points would go a long way. I find there is a good 2-3 turns where a fattie with only a few health left has to be chased down so I can actually get points for it at the cost of having to ignore other things I may have good shots on.

If a fattie with 1 health wants to run away in a partial point MOV system, be my guest.

Also, Outriders without the title. I have seen a few of those have success.

As much as I want dumb fatties nerfed into oblivion so that we can go back to playing normal lists with more than 2 ships, think of the poor ORS and the K Wing.

Partial points would go a long way. I find there is a good 2-3 turns where a fattie with only a few health left has to be chased down so I can actually get points for it at the cost of having to ignore other things I may have good shots on.

If a fattie with 1 health wants to run away in a partial point MOV system, be my guest.

TBF, 2 dice primaries are basically garbage as is

The reason I have no problem with title-less YTs (and no problem with outrider because of the HLC blindspot) is because getting to shoot out of arc isn't a straight benefit as much of a choice. Take an HLC fringer, for example. If you are in its arc, you're eating an HLC to the face. If you dodge its arc, or force the opponent to move such that he isn't facing your ships, then he's farting out 2 less dice.

There is a meaningful trade-off between arc and out of arc, making it so that they can't trivially ignore their opponent's positioning relative to their facing.

Now whether or not a PWT would affect them not at all (since, again, 2 dice are kinda crap) or unduly (maybe errata to a max dice limit?) I have no idea, but I do know that if someone is using the YT-2400 or the K-wing for their primaries then the stats per cost that FFG gave them mandate that said players are doing it wrong (with or without a PWT nerf).

Personally, I find that a more acceptable implementation of what is otherwise a horrible game mechanic

Perhaps an errata toning down out of arc shots to a max of 2 dice base (keeping the range one bonus) would be in order, allowing the yt-1300 and decimator to maintain a solid firing arc offense, or just a max of 3 dice base for out of arc shots (removing the imo idiotic range 1 bonus for yts and decis out of arc while not unduely penalizing the weaker yt-2400 and k-wing)

"base" here having the meaning of "before upgrades, such as the PS 8 K-wing ability or EPTs such as Expose/opprotunist)

all hypothetical, of course.

Main point being: I, as the resident detester of PWTs, am absolutely a-okay with how the YT-2400 and K-wings utilize the PWT advantage and would be more than happy to advocate those ships as models for how the PWT should operate in this game (Trading raw power for flexibility, not enjoying both at the same time with no downside)

Just match the boost like the barrel roll

And don't give them the range 1 bonus dice out of arc.

Interesting. But way to much IMO

My Idea:

Primary Weapons that shoot in 360 degree arc's, do not gain +1 for Range 1, unless the target is in the primary arc.

This makes ships with 360 primary weapons, have to fly a little better if they want the extra die for range 1. (Exactly like every other ship in the game)

Is it really that hard to spell out turret? It's only a few more letters, and less syllables.

I would got with:

"If an attacker shoots at a target out of arc, the defender adds 1 defense die to his defense roll."

Deflection shots are extremely more difficult than a head on or tailing firing resolution.

Is it really that hard to spell out turret? It's only a few more letters, and less syllables.

well, there's a massive difference between "turret" and "primary weapon turret" where this game is concerned

I know I personally don't think y-wings and hwks are bad at all

Is it really that hard to spell out turret? It's only a few more letters, and less syllables.

well, there's a massive difference between "turret" and "primary weapon turret" where this game is concerned

That's why we, as human beings, frequently use context to figure things out. If I see a friend staring up at the sky and he says "it's blue," I know he's not talking about the frosting on his sugar cookie. Likewise, if a person mentions turrets and Y-Wings in the same sentence, there's a fair chance that I'll be smart enough to know what he's referring to. I'd like to be able to extend that same assumption to everyone else here, since we all have brains and, for the most part, speak English.

Is it really that hard to spell out turret? It's only a few more letters, and less syllables.

well, there's a massive difference between "turret" and "primary weapon turret" where this game is concerned

That's why we, as human beings, frequently use context to figure things out. If I see a friend staring up at the sky and he says "it's blue," I know he's not talking about the frosting on his sugar cookie. Likewise, if a person mentions turrets and Y-Wings in the same sentence, there's a fair chance that I'll be smart enough to know what he's referring to. I'd like to be able to extend that same assumption to everyone else here, since we all have brains and, for the most part, speak English.

I appreciate context, but this is the internet and it's not always that we derive context from text alone.

imo, it helps to be explicit (just in case )

besides, PWT comes out in half the keystrokes

There are two sides to communication; there's what's easiest for you, and then there's what's easiest for the other guy. You're not doing people any favors by making up more acronyms in a game that already has too many.

I would got with:

"If an attacker shoots at a target out of arc, the defender adds 1 defense die to his defense roll."

Deflection shots are extremely more difficult than a head on or tailing firing resolution.

Deflection shots may be more difficult but are they if you are running side by side? That also ignores that "tailing fire" because if you jump in behind a ship that can still shoot at you then it may have an even better chance at shooting you!

Maybe FFG should've costed the MF Title or C3PO card a little higher. Ysanne Isaard as well.

If MF Title were 2 pts (this matches Target Computer cost), C3PO 5/6 pts, and Ysanne 5/6 pts, I think we'd be seeing different results for the turrets. They'd either be able to stack less of the "ideal" upgrades, or the support ships would be less powerful and reliable. The free "effective hp" these ships get from the crew cards, at least, seems to be undercosted when compared to what you actually get out of the cards.

These cards are obviously not the ONLY complaint, but I can definitely say prior to C3PO, the Falcon was a good ship, but received very few complaints, and those complaints were definitely justly refuted by other players much more easily. I feel the same for Ysanne Isaard. People will still win with the Falcon or Decimator, and there are many winning Decimator builds without Ysanne, but it will be much easier to stick damage on these ships if they have to give up something more for their defensive abilities.

Tldr;

Ysanne and C3PO (maybe MF title) seem to be undercosted for the damage they actually mitigate. If these upgrades costed more, less people would play them, or these ships would have to give up other upgrades that are essential for their Turret ship to consistently win.

There is no way that changing the number of dice you get with a turret doesn't screw up several ships that exist in the game or makes other ships better than they should be.

This is why the Phantom nerf worked. It affected one single ship. Turret nerfs will affect too many ships to keep a strong balance to the nerf without invalidating certain options completely.

There is no way that changing the number of dice you get with a turret doesn't screw up several ships that exist in the game or makes other ships better than they should be.

This is why the Phantom nerf worked. It affected one single ship. Turret nerfs will affect too many ships to keep a strong balance to the nerf without invalidating certain options completely.

So is it really a YT-1600 nerf as opposed to a primary turret nerf? If that is the case, maybe the card could be called

"They Told Me They Fixed It!"

Tldr;

Ysanne and C3PO (maybe MF title) seem to be undercosted for the damage they actually mitigate. If these upgrades costed more, less people would play them, or these ships would have to give up other upgrades that are essential for their Turret ship to consistently win.

So, Restricted List?

I think turrets don't get enough love, they should get the Kavil treatment and shoot an extra die when out of arc. It adds meaning to in or out of arc and buffs the k wing and ors/2400.

Maybe FFG should've costed the MF Title or C3PO card a little higher.

I think they tried to cost C3PO high - what was the original purchase price of that Tantive?

...oh, wrong cost....

Tldr;

Ysanne and C3PO (maybe MF title) seem to be undercosted for the damage they actually mitigate. If these upgrades costed more, less people would play them, or these ships would have to give up other upgrades that are essential for their Turret ship to consistently win.

So, Restricted List?

Not a restricted list, but a Re-Costing list. If those cards were higher cost (which matches the actual effective HP you get from these cards), squads would be harder pressed to utilize these cards and include other necessary upgrades.

The same Philosophy could be made for R2D2.

All of these cards equal the cost of a Hull or Shield upgrade with 1 use. With 2 uses, the upgrades' cost roughly equals the cost the ships pay for 2 Hull/Shield in their ship cost.

In general, I think we should move away from making ships more defensive, which is why I am against the turret "changes" suggested in this thread. Especially if these defensive changes are as cost effective as the currently available upgrades.

Heck, as situational as Autothrusters is, I feel it might be more appropriate at 3 pts. It at least competes with Hull/Stealth device at that point, though in many games, it definitely earns well beyond this cost in damage evaded.

Since costs are one of those things that they aren't going to errata, a restricted list is the easiest option.

I still think that you can kill two birds with one stone by aligning ordinance to hurt 2 ship 'fat' lists. By hurting turrets just in the turret functionality, you are mostly just going to make Soontir and Corran horrible to deal with forever and passively give a massive boost to arc dodgers.

I know that a lot of people who relish the "flying" part of the game would rather have a game full of Soontirs and Corrans than PWTs, but that still isn't really a healthy game state. Nerfing the Phantom didn't make PWTs better, theoretically it should have made them worse because swarms should have gotten better. Nerfing Phantoms only made Corran and Soontir better (and I'd bet IG-88 would get crushed by pre nerf Whisper). A new element needs to be added to the game that really hurts fatty 2 ship builds.

We still don't know about a lot of that ordinance that is coming in the next wave. I'm still hoping that for 5 points I can add a bit of ordinance to my ship that will make my opponent wish they had more than 2 ships on the table. From there it is a meta decision: do I bring the 5 points of ordinance that will weaken me against 3-4 ship builds but make my 2 ship matchup favorable? Do I run a 2 ship build hoping that people don't bring out the Conner Nets?

I don't understand the soontir/corran fear

They're amazing BECAUSE they absolutely crap on 2 ship builds. Stick them against enough firepower or control (or, god forbid, blockers) and they MELT

They're not pre errata phantoms, not even close (and even against those you didn't need turrets, just a PS 10 stressbit)

The same could be said for turrets in general. Rebel meat grinder squads are built to wreck two ship fat lists imo, and once we have an imperial equivalent in tempests, I think things might look a bit different.

Nothing wrong with turrets, leave as is.