The people who are poisoning the forums by telling every new player that wanders through that turret maneuvers don't matter and that you can't win without one are not good players. They're not good at the game, clearly, and they're terrible for the community.

Someone had to say it. I've been thinking this for a while now.

I'm one of those people, and stand by those statements, but I placed second at regionals without a turret. I guess I'm not good at the game guys

there's no point to responding to these provocations

the "get gud scrub" response has been around since Counterstrike, and it's always been pointless non-constructive criticism . They're less useful for resolving any issues revolving around the subject or for changing minds/convincing people, and more of a masturbatory exercise.

posts worth reading about such issues are more like Vayn's taking issue with my "your maneuvers don't matter," or the "Strategy Thread: killing turrets" a few posts below.

The people who are poisoning the forums by telling every new player that wanders through that turret maneuvers don't matter and that you can't win without one are not good players. They're not good at the game, clearly, and they're terrible for the community.

Someone had to say it. I've been thinking this for a while now.

I'm one of those people, and stand by those statements, but I placed second at regionals without a turret. I guess I'm not good at the game guys

I guess you weren't one of the 9 non-turret lists that beat a turret in the final. Tough luck. Don't blame the turret, blame yourself.

Or the dice

The people who are poisoning the forums by telling every new player that wanders through that turret maneuvers don't matter and that you can't win without one are not good players. They're not good at the game, clearly, and they're terrible for the community.

Someone had to say it. I've been thinking this for a while now.

I'm one of those people, and stand by those statements, but I placed second at regionals without a turret. I guess I'm not good at the game guys

I guess you weren't one of the 9 non-turret lists that beat a turret in the final. Tough luck. Don't blame the turret, blame yourself.

Or the dice

Lost to 4B with AC, no turret made finals at Raleigh, although I beat double falcon and chewie+escort in quarters and semis...and 2 decis during swiss

The people who are poisoning the forums by telling every new player that wanders through that turret maneuvers don't matter and that you can't win without one are not good players. They're not good at the game, clearly, and they're terrible for the community.

Someone had to say it. I've been thinking this for a while now.

I'm one of those people, and stand by those statements, but I placed second at regionals without a turret. I guess I'm not good at the game guys

Stang! If you'd just brought a turret you would have won for sure! I made the cut without a turret as well.

If someone had just told me to bring a turret I probably would have won also. That's really good to know. Now I know better than to think that I've ever lost a legitimate fair game to a turret.

In all seriousness you are not the kind of poster I am talking about. There are 4-5 serious bad apples that legitimately believe that their games against turrets are all weighted so far against them that they can't do anything about it. They do bring the forum down and poison the atmosphere.

The meta might be changing, as some claim, but its not there yet and turrets are here to stay. Boring? Maybe. But turrets have been around in the real world since the earliest days of powered flight. They are a simple and effective way to protect a plane/ship and project firepower around you - and they are a big part of the SW space combat canon.

I largely dont have much of a problem with fat turrets as they are by no means impossible to beat. I do think certain aspects of the turreted large ship need a tweak, in the same way that other elements of game play have needed it (i.e. phantom). I think what pushes peoples buttons is not just the more extreme aspects of turret fatness, but the prevalence of easy option fat turrets at the moment.

I don’t believe that there is NO skill involved in piloting turrets, but I don’t believe anyone who has flown against a fat turret build that just circles the outside of the play area using boost and PTL to dictate the game can argue that this requires any particularly developed understanding of the game (bar maybe list building) to succeed. Sure, not everyone who flies turrets uses that tactic, but from experience, it’s pretty common. It’s also pretty obnoxious to play against - especially if you are flying fighters which under any sane definition of the word should be able to easily overtake what is essentially a souped-up civilian delivery truck.

Which brings me on to the one thing that doesn’t makes sense to me: With large bases and boost available through Engine Upgrade, not-particularly agile freighters for the most part can outrun and even outmaneuver dedicated fighters. I don’t think there is much excuse (apart from a few VERY special snowflakes; i.e. THE Millennium Falcon) for any delivery truck to be that maneuverable. Let’s be clear; these are civilian delivery trucks; they were designed for carrying cargo/people for the most part, not combat (Decimator being an exception). Even with modifications, they are big, heavy and generally underpowered compared to a fighter. Maybe there is a case to be made for straight line speed: the Millennium Falcon might have been able to catch a TIE in a drag race, but you won’t find many large cargo aircraft from history that can outmaneuver or outrun a fighter, even a heavy fighter. I think it was a mistake for these ships to have better dials than the majority of the fighter element of this game - it just doesn't make sense. But we are stuck with it.

Its all very well saying “don’t chase them” but in a timed competitive event, you usually HAVE to chase them to make sure you can win or they just fly away with most of their squad build points secure within layers of blubber. Competitive play isn’t the whole of this game, but nor is it not a part of it either. It forms a large component of peoples experience with this game and for some probably represents a significant part of their X Wing play time. You can’t block something that can move faster than your fighters if it doesn't want to joust, reducing you to following it round the board trading dice with it, which, as has been pointed out, it can often do better. Pulling it into roids often doesnt bother them too much (Dash, Predator, Gunner) and for a decent player wont be too much of a worry. Cutting it off as it circles involves telegraphing your moves, giving the player time to react and most likely being unable to shoot at the fat turret for a turn or more, during which time unless you are lucky, it still has you in range and can shoot you. On the other hand if you manage to wipe out the fat turret’s escort without loss, it’s hard to run away from something which is faster than your fighters - and if you are running away from it, it can shoot at you, but you cant shoot back - unless you are a turret.

Here are a couple of scenarios which illustrate my point: One is from the X Wing series of flightsim games by Lucasarts, and one is from the miniatures game. See if you can spot which is which.

1: You are flying leading a flight of Y Wings and have to attack a freighter. You would go to maximum speed, chasing the freighter and overhaul it at max throttle, forcing it to fight. If you wanted to speed up and catch it sooner you would probably dump power from your weapons into the engines to gain speed. Then when you were closer, you would switch your guns back on, trading some shield power into your weapons to charge them. Then you would engage the freighter. Even if you didn’t change the power settings you could still catch the freighter, it just took longer.

2: You are leading a flight of Y Wings and have to attack a freighter. You would go to maximum speed, chasing the freighter. The freighter would go to max throttle and just by virtue of the fact that it has a larger base and a better dial it manages to outrun you. You lose.

Which seems the more reasonable?

What I think the Lucasarts series did model quite well was the toughness of the turreted ships like the YT series. They dished out a lot of punishment even as they were taking it. A lone fighter vs a turreted ship would suffer badly, you needed several fighters making simultaneous runs to bring one down. I think this is pretty well represented in the game now and I think its a pretty decent representation.

I do have faith in FFGs ability to keep this game balanced, though I guess my patience, like most people’s gets a little worn when it takes so long to implement changes for plainly obvious glitches. Barrel Roll has already been slimmed down for large ships, I don’t see any reason as to why boost shouldn’t also be somehow trimmed slightly in order to remove the worst aspects of the base related speed scale.

That is a solid point about turrets getting shots. It's not guaranteed at all and the suggestion that it is is pretty silly. Han has the potential to kill ps10 Corran. A well-flown Han will get his shots and win about half the time. A poorly-flown Han will fail to get consistent fire and be pretty easily whittled down.

That is not a solid point at all.

A poorly-flown Han, with the exceptions of landing on asteroids and in-range Biggs, will have a shot every time you go to "whittle [him] down".

He will have just as much "consistent fire" as the opponent who can make consistent shots on him.

What he can't do is shoot at more than one ship a round, so that's where a well-flown Han will shine where the poorly-flown Han will not: ideally, shooting at ships that cannot shoot back; or, second best case, trading fire with just one ship at a time and effectively negating the numerical advantage his opponent often has. Which is also of course where damage mitigation upgrades are most useful.

But it is the unchangeable truth that if a ship in standard play can attack a PWT, with the two exceptions noted above, the PWT can also target that ship. No amount of hand-waving to say that maneuvering still matters changes that fact. By virtue of merely being a PWT, it guarantees to have shots (unless the person flying it likes the asteroid hop, or the opponent stays out of range all game long. But I suppose the probability of hitting an asteroid can be reduced if the player brings debris fields, so that's a thing too.).

Oh, I guess there's one other exception I forgot-- if you get the Blinded Pilot crit on him, and use the Saboteur-Palpatine combo to continually flip that card faceup, you force the PWT to roll no dice when it attacks (except for Gunner). So I guess there's three and a half exceptions to guaranteeing shots for yourself by taking a PWT.

EDIT: Forgot Arvel Crynyd. Four and a half exceptions, if your opponent can ram the PWT every time, have you in arc, and after your move still have him touching you.

und Biggs!

it's actually quite funny to see how frustrated some players get when they can always target Biggs

of course Biggs doesn't last very long against unavoidable fire, but hey trolling's worth any price

derp, you already said it

No, because bumps. If the turret ship is shooting at 1 opponent who isn't Corran Horn or a ship with bombs or feedback array then you will be trading shots. In all other situations the turret might not have a shot on the ship it wants. The target it wants can cause a bump(which is the same as doing damage to Han if another ship has arc). The target can slow-roll and range it out while the other ships force it to either eat tons of damage or lose its target.

Thank you again for your responses. I think I would like to expand on some parts of my OP I left vague.

"Good for the game" we will all have our own definition of this term, i think for me it means something which helps have a pool of opponents that i can play an enjoyable game with. Enjoyable is another subjective term. What i find fun is games that hang in the balance where it has tension, it can go either way, because of an important dice roll, or a gamble or trying to out think your opponents next move. Winning is nice, but its not all important to me. And the other component is variety, i dont want to play out the same scenario over and over. Remember the thrill of doing something for the first time? Is it still as exciting now?

I think turrets fit, they are a part of star wars, its the obesity i wonder about. I just think that when they made these cards they didnt see all the implications. How many people would say with the benefit of hindsight they would have implemented it the same way? Clearly there are more people than ever playing this game so maybe they are fine. And one last point, good is not the same as not bad.

The Armada bit was a joke, i will be playing that anyway for a bit as they are my new toys.

It is undoubtedly true that a lot of newer ships don't really give you that "hanging in the balance" feeling. And I agree it is pretty frustrating. Those included several turrets, but I don't think the turret is the reason. It's some of the available upgrades.

But if you have a lone B-wing against Han or Corran or Whisper or Kenkirk or Fel or Dash the result is still the same. These ships were added to the game to add variety and new ways of playing. They accomplished that goal really well and add a lot of completely new play styles, but the side effect is these frustrating situations you're talking about. Still good for the game as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with you there, Mystic Force. Even something as simple as a higher cost for the C3PO or Ysanne, or add a stress to your ship if these cards are used, stuff like that would make these ships quite a bit different. Our supporting upgrades or ships would be much less, and/or more tough choices would have to be made, which feels more like classic X Wing to me.

The people who are poisoning the forums by telling every new player that wanders through that turret maneuvers don't matter and that you can't win without one are not good players. They're not good at the game, clearly, and they're terrible for the community.

Someone had to say it. I've been thinking this for a while now.

I'm one of those people, and stand by those statements, but I placed second at regionals without a turret. I guess I'm not good at the game guys

there's no point to responding to these provocations

the "get gud scrub" response has been around since Counterstrike, and it's always been pointless non-constructive criticism . They're less useful for resolving any issues revolving around the subject or for changing minds/convincing people, and more of a masturbatory exercise.

posts worth reading about such issues are more like Vayn's taking issue with my "your maneuvers don't matter," or the "Strategy Thread: killing turrets" a few posts below.

I think the problem is you simply don't want to fly against a turreted ship since you don't have fun. Official competitive play is probably not for you.

Solution- Perhaps organize 50-60 point tournaments small base only or play against people who will not fly turrets?

I am not sure what else you can ask for other than making it clear you are not happy with the game but turrets will always be part of the game.

I agree with you there, Mystic Force. Even something as simple as a higher cost for the C3PO or Ysanne, or add a stress to your ship if these cards are used, stuff like that would make these ships quite a bit different. Our supporting upgrades or ships would be much less, and/or more tough choices would have to be made, which feels more like classic X Wing to me.

I think your touching on a good point, perhaps 3PO is too cheap! But that is a totally different argument then what you are making. Personally, I like the idea the turrets can only fire at range 2 out of arc.

I still cant believe no-one gave this answer to the OP:

*waves hand*

"Fat turrets are good for the game"

*Waves hand again*

"You want to go home and rethink the way you play X Wing"

Which undermines the whole point of turrets. Sticking weapons on turret mounts doesn't automatically reduce their range unless the mount is unstable or isn't sufficient for the weight of the gun. There is nothing to suggest that the turreted ships suffer from this - certainly not ships which were specifically designed to mount turreted weapons, such as the decimator. Even on the YT series (often refitted and upgraded), there is no reason to believe that this is the case. Turret secondary weapons have so far only been limited to range 2 by design and represent an entirely different class of turret weapon - being much smaller and lighter. The new Twin Laser Turret in Wave 7 is range 2-3 if spoilers are to be believed, which suggests that lumping all turrets into one bracket is pointless. Primary turrets such as the YT, Deci, K Wing etc seem to be designed to compete range wise with weapons on smaller ships. Reducing their range to 2 would only serve to remove them as viable options from play.

Reducing large based ships ability to exploit boost on the other hand would remove their ability to dictate the range engagement - meaning that small ships would be able to gain an offensive advantage by maintaining the optimum range for their attacks (whatever that would be). Yes, you would weather fire on approach, that seems realistic, but you would be able to decide how effective your attacks would be by being able to close to range 1 if that is what is required, more easily than now.

The meta might be changing, as some claim, but its not there yet and turrets are here to stay. Boring? Maybe. But turrets have been around in the real world since the earliest days of powered flight. They are a simple and effective way to protect a plane/ship and project firepower around you - and they are a big part of the SW space combat canon.

I largely dont have much of a problem with fat turrets as they are by no means impossible to beat. I do think certain aspects of the turreted large ship need a tweak, in the same way that other elements of game play have needed it (i.e. phantom). I think what pushes peoples buttons is not just the more extreme aspects of turret fatness, but the prevalence of easy option fat turrets at the moment.

I don’t believe that there is NO skill involved in piloting turrets, but I don’t believe anyone who has flown against a fat turret build that just circles the outside of the play area using boost and PTL to dictate the game can argue that this requires any particularly developed understanding of the game (bar maybe list building) to succeed. Sure, not everyone who flies turrets uses that tactic, but from experience, it’s pretty common. It’s also pretty obnoxious to play against - especially if you are flying fighters which under any sane definition of the word should be able to easily overtake what is essentially a souped-up civilian delivery truck.

Which brings me on to the one thing that doesn’t makes sense to me: With large bases and boost available through Engine Upgrade, not-particularly agile freighters for the most part can outrun and even outmaneuver dedicated fighters. I don’t think there is much excuse (apart from a few VERY special snowflakes; i.e. THE Millennium Falcon) for any delivery truck to be that maneuverable. Let’s be clear; these are civilian delivery trucks; they were designed for carrying cargo/people for the most part, not combat (Decimator being an exception). Even with modifications, they are big, heavy and generally underpowered compared to a fighter. Maybe there is a case to be made for straight line speed: the Millennium Falcon might have been able to catch a TIE in a drag race, but you won’t find many large cargo aircraft from history that can outmaneuver or outrun a fighter, even a heavy fighter. I think it was a mistake for these ships to have better dials than the majority of the fighter element of this game - it just doesn't make sense. But we are stuck with it.

Its all very well saying “don’t chase them” but in a timed competitive event, you usually HAVE to chase them to make sure you can win or they just fly away with most of their squad build points secure within layers of blubber. Competitive play isn’t the whole of this game, but nor is it not a part of it either. It forms a large component of peoples experience with this game and for some probably represents a significant part of their X Wing play time. You can’t block something that can move faster than your fighters if it doesn't want to joust, reducing you to following it round the board trading dice with it, which, as has been pointed out, it can often do better. Pulling it into roids often doesnt bother them too much (Dash, Predator, Gunner) and for a decent player wont be too much of a worry. Cutting it off as it circles involves telegraphing your moves, giving the player time to react and most likely being unable to shoot at the fat turret for a turn or more, during which time unless you are lucky, it still has you in range and can shoot you. On the other hand if you manage to wipe out the fat turret’s escort without loss, it’s hard to run away from something which is faster than your fighters - and if you are running away from it, it can shoot at you, but you cant shoot back - unless you are a turret.

Here are a couple of scenarios which illustrate my point: One is from the X Wing series of flightsim games by Lucasarts, and one is from the miniatures game. See if you can spot which is which.

1: You are flying leading a flight of Y Wings and have to attack a freighter. You would go to maximum speed, chasing the freighter and overhaul it at max throttle, forcing it to fight. If you wanted to speed up and catch it sooner you would probably dump power from your weapons into the engines to gain speed. Then when you were closer, you would switch your guns back on, trading some shield power into your weapons to charge them. Then you would engage the freighter. Even if you didn’t change the power settings you could still catch the freighter, it just took longer.

2: You are leading a flight of Y Wings and have to attack a freighter. You would go to maximum speed, chasing the freighter. The freighter would go to max throttle and just by virtue of the fact that it has a larger base and a better dial it manages to outrun you. You lose.

Which seems the more reasonable?

What I think the Lucasarts series did model quite well was the toughness of the turreted ships like the YT series. They dished out a lot of punishment even as they were taking it. A lone fighter vs a turreted ship would suffer badly, you needed several fighters making simultaneous runs to bring one down. I think this is pretty well represented in the game now and I think its a pretty decent representation.

I do have faith in FFGs ability to keep this game balanced, though I guess my patience, like most people’s gets a little worn when it takes so long to implement changes for plainly obvious glitches. Barrel Roll has already been slimmed down for large ships, I don’t see any reason as to why boost shouldn’t also be somehow trimmed slightly in order to remove the worst aspects of the base related speed scale.

Personally, I like the idea the turrets can only fire at range 2 out of arc.

The people that are suggesting changing the boost action are more in line of what can be done to balance things out. I agree slapping an engine upgrade on a large hull can make it incredibly fast. But a change like the large ship barrel roll is easier said than done because of the bank turns.

What will be important is to make sure the ships bearing still pivots 45 degrees, besides that I wouldn't have a problem with this change. Large hulls are obnoxiously fast with an engine upgrade. But that's the flight system that was implemented, and until a change happens, you'll have to find ways to counter it.

Edit: Don't know if this has been suggested before, what about after the bank template placing a straight template, and lining up the front nubs of the ship on that? In other words, the bank boost for large hulls have the template end line up with the front not the back. Using a 1 bank template might be too much to slow down, maybe a 2 template will be a happy medium. Will have to test this when I get home.

Personally, I like the idea the turrets can only fire at range 2 out of arc.

This is an awful idea. So is removing one attack die outside of arc. You want to cripple turrets to the point of non-contention, and that does nothing to balance the game.

The people that are suggesting changing the boost action are more in line of what can be done to balance things out. I agree slapping an engine upgrade on a large hull can make it incredibly fast. But a change like the large ship barrel roll is easier said than done because of the bank turns.

What will be important is to make sure the ships bearing still pivots 45 degrees, besides that I wouldn't have a problem with this change. Large hulls are obnoxiously fast with an engine upgrade. But that's the flight system that was implemented, and until a change happens, you'll have to find ways to counter it.

Edit: Don't know if this has been suggested before, what about after the bank template placing a straight template, and lining up the front nubs of the ship on that? In other words, the bank boost for large hulls have the template end line up with the front not the back. Using a 1 bank template might be too much to slow down, maybe a 2 template will be a happy medium. Will have to test this when I get home.

Well, it seems to work fine with all of the small base ships.... Especially with Hawks and I do not think those ships are unplayable.

works fine with Dash too, only the HLC is inverted

Personally, I like the idea the turrets can only fire at range 2 out of arc.

This is an awful idea. So is removing one attack die outside of arc. You want to cripple turrets to the point of non-contention, and that does nothing to balance the game.

The people that are suggesting changing the boost action are more in line of what can be done to balance things out. I agree slapping an engine upgrade on a large hull can make it incredibly fast. But a change like the large ship barrel roll is easier said than done because of the bank turns.

What will be important is to make sure the ships bearing still pivots 45 degrees, besides that I wouldn't have a problem with this change. Large hulls are obnoxiously fast with an engine upgrade. But that's the flight system that was implemented, and until a change happens, you'll have to find ways to counter it.

Edit: Don't know if this has been suggested before, what about after the bank template placing a straight template, and lining up the front nubs of the ship on that? In other words, the bank boost for large hulls have the template end line up with the front not the back. Using a 1 bank template might be too much to slow down, maybe a 2 template will be a happy medium. Will have to test this when I get home.

Well, it seems to work fine with all of the small base ships.... Especially with Hawks and I do not think those ships are unplayable.

If the spoilers are correct, they're introducing a R2-3 secondary turret the next wave. I wouldn't consider current availability for those ships as a rule.

I figure turrets exist for more or less the same reason the red dice have a better ratio of positive results. When more hits are scored the game is shorter. I played a game last night(untimed) that ended in a Whisper/Soontier duel. We had a great time, but that end game pushed the time well past 75min.

The concise play time is a feature of the game I value highly. Turrets serve that feature.

Well. I think you have to have turrets, and they are fun and fluffy. However, you need to make them suffer some weakness or which right now they have none.

The problem is when they were first added to the game since there weren't many ships and crew, they fit fine, because a two ship build would not work. Now that all the extra ships are out and crew, we have a two ship possible meta, their cost is not as high as it used to be in game terms. Since the game has changed, turrets are now overpowered. FFG underestimated the ability and costs of a turret for long term play. As a game matures and things are added this balance must be maintained.

Hopefully, FFG will fix sometime in the future.

This is my suggested fix

Only allowing them to gain +1 die for range 1 if the target is in the primary arc. (Just like every other ship in the game is a good start). This forces these ships to fly better, especially in the end game, which is really where turrets dominate.

The Falcon has never had a sublight speed nor acceleration advantage over TIEs. It couldn't just outrun them when escaping the Death Star, it couldn't just outrun them leaving Hoth, and it couldn't shake the Interceptors in the DS2, although Lando may have been flying slower so he didn't crash into things.

Yeah fair point. I was thinking of the scene from Ep 4 just before the Falcon gets tractored into the DS. Han was chasing the TIE and the implication was that he was going to catch it, or at least get into weapons range. But that was probably going to be a long tedious chase

Actually, if a turret shooting outside of its primary arc didn't get a bonus attack dice at Range 1, I wouldn't be too miffed about it. Secondary Turret upgrades already don't get a bonus attack dice at range 1. I don't see why Primary Weapon turrets get one if Secondary Weapon turrets don't (besides the obvious rules about secondary weapons not getting bonus dice in general).

In fact, what if we just treated Primary Weapon turrets the same way we treat Secondary weapons? No range bonuses when Shooting with the Turret at range 1, but also no Range 3 bonus defense die for the opponent if getting shot at by the turret.

It's not necessarily a nerd, but a rewrite that changes up how the ship plays. It'll be better at shooting at Range 3, out of arc, but worse at shooting at range 1 out of arc. That'd give the ship another level of skill to learn without wholly hurting it.

It'd be nice to get on the Turret's flank and shoot 4 dice attacks in its rear while only taking 3 dice attacks back.

To be honest, this is the first rule change I've seen in a while that feels like it has precedence due to how Secondary Weapon turrets are handled. It also isn't a nerf, but more like a change to make the ship more active to play with and against, just like the Phantom change. I think I'll start a new thread to discuss this.

Actually, if a turret shooting outside of its primary arc didn't get a bonus attack dice at Range 1, I wouldn't be too miffed about it. Secondary Turret upgrades already don't get a bonus attack dice at range 1. I don't see why Primary Weapon turrets get one if Secondary Weapon turrets don't (besides the obvious rules about secondary weapons not getting bonus dice in general).

In fact, what if we just treated Primary Weapon turrets the same way we treat Secondary weapons? No range bonuses when Shooting with the Turret at range 1, but also no Range 3 bonus defense die for the opponent if getting shot at by the turret.

It's not necessarily a nerd, but a rewrite that changes up how the ship plays. It'll be better at shooting at Range 3, out of arc, but worse at shooting at range 1 out of arc. That'd give the ship another level of skill to learn without wholly hurting it.

It'd be nice to get on the Turret's flank and shoot 4 dice attacks in its rear while only taking 3 dice attacks back.

To be honest, this is the first rule change I've seen in a while that feels like it has precedence due to how Secondary Weapon turrets are handled. It also isn't a nerf, but more like a change to make the ship more active to play with and against, just like the Phantom change. I think I'll start a new thread to discuss this.

The only issue I have with your idea, is giving PWT no modifier for range 3. You have not nerfed the ship at all. Just go with the same rules as every other primary weapon on ships. Only +1 die at range one when the target is in front arc.

That fixes it. It's not a nerf, but more of a now you have exactly the same bonus as every other ship. Also remember this secondary weapon rule for turrets is that way, because no turrets have range 3, only 1-2.

The Falcon has never had a sublight speed nor acceleration advantage over TIEs. It couldn't just outrun them when escaping the Death Star, it couldn't just outrun them leaving Hoth, and it couldn't shake the Interceptors in the DS2, although Lando may have been flying slower so he didn't crash into things.

Yeah fair point. I was thinking of the scene from Ep 4 just before the Falcon gets tractored into the DS. Han was chasing the TIE and the implication was that he was going to catch it, or at least get into weapons range. But that was probably going to be a long tedious chase

The TIE was in control of that situation and let him catch up. If the Falcon could outrun a TIE, it would have done so numerous times in the series.