What do you guys think of this as far as modifying boost for large hulls?

What do you guys think of this as far as modifying boost for large hulls?

I think it'd be a great house rule that will probably never be implemented in tourney play (partially because it could get annoying to measure it out, and partially because Engine Upgrade -- with the rules that tell you to do a one-straight or -bank -- is only included with large ships).

@OP (I haven't really read the rest of the thread, so sorry if I missed important stuffs): Turrets add variety and complexity to the game. Let me make a few points:

1) They don't stop the maneuvering game. If you're flying a turret, you have to fly in such a way that you take advantage of that turret because you're paying a lot of points for it. If you joust, you will lose. If you fly into asteroids, you will (likely) lose. Your opponent is getting more shots per turn than you are, simply because of how expensive turreted ships are; that means that you have to get out of arcs at least a few turns if you are to win. I will concede that C-3P0 is . . . a bit bogus. He lets you joust much, MUCH better.

Likewise, if you're flying against a turret, you certainly care about maneuvering, because that's how you counter a turret. You force it into a part of the board where it has limited options. You block it. You don't let it get shots when you have none.

2) Engine Upgrade turrets are not the end of the world, because it takes an action to use EU. That means that the ship is losing out on dice modification and that you can shut it down with stress.

3) Turrets are fun to fly against. My favorite lists are four-ship Rebel builds, but when I see a turret across the table, I'm happy to fly against it because I know that it will make for some interesting maneuvering choices on both our parts.

I feel like people often get frustrated by the turns when turrets are able to completely escape arcs and immediately declare them cheap and lazy, despite the fact that the player flying the turrets has to dodge arcs to make the turret worth its cost in points. It's the same reason people get frustrated by SuperFel; he's really hard to kill, but he has to be in order to be worth his cost.

The only problem that I have with turrets is C-3P0, because there isn't really a viable way to counter him. I've been toying around with Outmaneuver and just swarms, though, so we'll see how that goes.

<Braces himself for incoming flak>

I think if you don't allow the player guessing 0, C3P0 could be more of a gamble (which I think was the intention) and less of a damage mitigation card.

It's funny because I remember seeing it for the first time being used by someone in my LGS and guessing one evade, and I was like "why not just guess 0?" and everyones mind was blown.

Despite Fat Turrets being dominate in the current meta, they do come with enough variety that well in a competitive setting you know what to expect. I mean take a look at the list they really are quite diverse.

• Fat Han + escorts (Z-95/a-wings)
• RAC + Soontir
• RAC + Whipser
• 2x Decimators
• Dash + Corran Horn
• Doubile Falcon (Han + Chewie or Lando + Chewie)
• Chewbo (Chewie + Leebo)
• Buzzdroids/Brobots (IG-88 B & C/D)

That is 8 different builds and we haven't even begin to go into the different upgrade configurations for each of those lists. Not a bad spread with 4 Rebel list 3 Imperial Lists and 1 S&V list (although they are new so they need more ships and options). So to say that diversity in this game is gone would be an error.

However even though there is micro diversity there clearly is a lack of macro diversity. Back in the Wave 4 era when there were swarms, Fat Turrets, and Arc dodgers. However the problem with macro diversity is that it tends to break down into a paper-rock-scissors build where what builds your list plays against can have a big factor on rankings (especially with the current MOV) system.

What needs to be done is take just a little power from some of the more common builds and transfer it to some mid range builds to add a little bit of macro diversity into the game where it doesn't create a PRS balanced system sot that the players who have skills with selecting maneuvers and calculating target priorities a chance to use those to excel in competition instead of choosing a list that goes against the popular builds and not getting a build that the list is weak against.

No.

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.

We'll soon get a Secondary turret upgrade that shoots range 2-3. You can bet it'll follow the same rulings as secondary weapons.

And, I'm okay with it not being a TOTAL nerf. It's just taking power from one area and putting it into another. Sometimes, you don't need to remove overall stats to "fix" a problem. You can instead re-allocate those stats into something else and serve the same purpose. This way you run less risk of OVER nerfing a ship.

I just don't want to create changes that overall make killing things a lot HARDER. I think treating Primary Weapon Turrets as Secondary Weapon Turrets is a reasonable idea that makes sense. Why in the first place are Secondary Weapon Turrets treated differently than Primary Weapon Turrets? On a ship, they literal act the same way. At least missiles and cannons have some sense to them (missiles are guided by a target lock that tracks the enemy ship equally at close range and far range, Cannons are higher powered weapons don't lose as much energy over distances (okay, this case is lacking a bit, but another thread has been brought up to discuss this)).

It just seems pretty easy to create errata that states:

"Ships with turrets now treat all shots fired outside of the primary arc the same as Secondary weapons (Ignores Range bonus dice)." Etc etc etc.

I like this for many reasons, some of them being so Blaster Turrets and Ion Cannons don't get totally molested when they get into Range 1 of a Falcon. It isn't talked about much, but those Secondary turrets suffer greatly at Range 1, which is a pain. It will also be much more devastating when a ship flanks. It also means Falcons/Decis aren't COMPLETELY screwed when a ship gets on their tail. They can now rush to Range 3 and get an attack advantage. But trade shots with them at Range 1 and the turrets easily fall behind, rather than stay even.

Ships with turrets now treat all shots fired outside of the primary arc the same as Secondary weapons attacks made out of arc ignore Range bonuses

done und done

poor talonbane, though

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.

Fortunately we've got you around to help lift the forum up and clear the air with a bunch of personal insults! SUCH a better environment when people you don't agree with can just be insulted into silence!

OMG.

This is what? The eleventy-first thread on turrets and/or fat builds in the past few days?

Enough already.

Srsly.

This.

Why do people need to post this sort of thread, I will never understand.

I'm no fan of 40k, I find it incredibly easy to not go to Warseer (or whatever) and complain about it.

Ok after reading all the responses through several times i have concluded the following, in general turrets fit with the game, and are reasonable in game play terms. No one can defend the fatness as being a good or essential part of the game and without it the game would suffer, instead it is argued

1) that people need to be better to beat them.

2) stop complaining it exists.

Niether are really satisfactorily answering the question i possed. I feared when asking this question it would descend in to the same argument from other threads. For which i tried to bring it back on track. For those pointing out that if i did not like something i didnt have to look at it missed their own point.....

I was genuinely interested in an answer, something i might have overlooked in all the hyperbole. By asking this way i wanted a different discusion. I was disapointed that it went the usual way. I have to say that some people did contribute some good and reasoned points. I will give respect to anyone who will explain the point and reasoning behind it even if i disagree with the conclusion. Ultimately this is about opinions and we are all going to have different ones. I would love to meet you across a table and share our common interest, and have a fun game, it doesnt matter if i win, but i want it to be enjoyable, i can have my butt severly spanked and still have a good time.

So thank you to those who positively contributed to this topic, and for those who disparaged and made deliberate false arguments you might what to consider your purpose, as to everyone else it does not make you look better but reduces your stature. You might not like me and i am fine with that. I would just like to raise the level of debate on the Internet, although i might be King Canute faced with a tsunami here, so i dont hold much hope.

Thank you for your time and may the force be with you.

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.

We'll soon get a Secondary turret upgrade that shoots range 2-3. You can bet it'll follow the same rulings as secondary weapons.

And, I'm okay with it not being a TOTAL nerf. It's just taking power from one area and putting it into another. Sometimes, you don't need to remove overall stats to "fix" a problem. You can instead re-allocate those stats into something else and serve the same purpose. This way you run less risk of OVER nerfing a ship.

I just don't want to create changes that overall make killing things a lot HARDER. I think treating Primary Weapon Turrets as Secondary Weapon Turrets is a reasonable idea that makes sense. Why in the first place are Secondary Weapon Turrets treated differently than Primary Weapon Turrets? On a ship, they literal act the same way. At least missiles and cannons have some sense to them (missiles are guided by a target lock that tracks the enemy ship equally at close range and far range, Cannons are higher powered weapons don't lose as much energy over distances (okay, this case is lacking a bit, but another thread has been brought up to discuss this)).

It just seems pretty easy to create errata that states:

"Ships with turrets now treat all shots fired outside of the primary arc the same as Secondary weapons (Ignores Range bonus dice)." Etc etc etc.

I like this for many reasons, some of them being so Blaster Turrets and Ion Cannons don't get totally molested when they get into Range 1 of a Falcon. It isn't talked about much, but those Secondary turrets suffer greatly at Range 1, which is a pain. It will also be much more devastating when a ship flanks. It also means Falcons/Decis aren't COMPLETELY screwed when a ship gets on their tail. They can now rush to Range 3 and get an attack advantage. But trade shots with them at Range 1 and the turrets easily fall behind, rather than stay even.

I understand your point, but giving a ship 360 fire and cancelling range 3 benefits really helps turrets even more. The new turret does one damage at range 3 only. If you still allows pwt 360 fire and cancelling of range 3 benefits for the defender, you now have two turret ship builds that never leave the edge ever. They can face and fortress and take range 3 pot shots anyway they want. Flying safely apart and boosting to range 3 all the time. This is IMO overpowered.

As for being screwed when a big ship has an enemy on it's tail. Yes! But not as much as other ships, since they can still shoot, but not with +1 for range 1. That is the point. It fixes the late game dominance of pwt ships, because they will no longer be able to stay at range 1 arc dodge and gain +1 attack dice.

It makes sense all ships are screwed when an enemy is on its tail. That's why big ships have to fly with escorts to keep that from happening. So just go with the +1 attack die at range 1 when in primary arc only for PWT ships.

It will make the game more like it was intended to be.

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.

We'll soon get a Secondary turret upgrade that shoots range 2-3. You can bet it'll follow the same rulings as secondary weapons.

And, I'm okay with it not being a TOTAL nerf. It's just taking power from one area and putting it into another. Sometimes, you don't need to remove overall stats to "fix" a problem. You can instead re-allocate those stats into something else and serve the same purpose. This way you run less risk of OVER nerfing a ship.

I just don't want to create changes that overall make killing things a lot HARDER. I think treating Primary Weapon Turrets as Secondary Weapon Turrets is a reasonable idea that makes sense. Why in the first place are Secondary Weapon Turrets treated differently than Primary Weapon Turrets? On a ship, they literal act the same way. At least missiles and cannons have some sense to them (missiles are guided by a target lock that tracks the enemy ship equally at close range and far range, Cannons are higher powered weapons don't lose as much energy over distances (okay, this case is lacking a bit, but another thread has been brought up to discuss this)).

It just seems pretty easy to create errata that states:

"Ships with turrets now treat all shots fired outside of the primary arc the same as Secondary weapons (Ignores Range bonus dice)." Etc etc etc.

I like this for many reasons, some of them being so Blaster Turrets and Ion Cannons don't get totally molested when they get into Range 1 of a Falcon. It isn't talked about much, but those Secondary turrets suffer greatly at Range 1, which is a pain. It will also be much more devastating when a ship flanks. It also means Falcons/Decis aren't COMPLETELY screwed when a ship gets on their tail. They can now rush to Range 3 and get an attack advantage. But trade shots with them at Range 1 and the turrets easily fall behind, rather than stay even.

I understand your point, but giving a ship 360 fire and cancelling range 3 benefits really helps turrets even more. The new turret does one damage at range 3 only. If you still allow pwt 360 fire and cancelling of range 3 benefits for the defender, you now have two turret ships that never leave the edge ever. They can face each other and take range 3 pot shots anyway they want. Flying safely apart and boosting to range 3 all the time. This is IMO overpowered.

As for being screwed when a big ship has an enemy on it's tail. Yes! But not as much as other ships, since they can still shoot. It makes sense all ships are screwed when an enemy is on its tail. That's why big ships have to fly with escorts to keep that from happening. So just go with the +1 attack die at range 1 when in primary arc only for PWT ships.

It will make the game more like it was intended to be.

You mean what you intend it to be. Assuming that you speak for the designers, or know their minds, is somewhat presumptuous.

Also please explain, what your justification for primary weapon turrets only gaining the range bonuses at range in arc is. Normal, non-turreted, ships get the bonus to reflect the increased accuracy at close range. There is a realistic reason behind it; weapons are more accurate at closer ranges. There is no reason why turreted weapons wouldn't be more accurate at range 1 in the same way. Nerfing anything for game balance 'just because' doesn't make it a good nerf. There isn't any particular reason why turrets would be more accurate in the forward arc only.

Even taking deflection gunnery into account, it still doesn't make much sense. A turret on a moving platform has to compensate for its own movement and that of the target - fine. But that remains constant whether the shot is taken in the forward arc or not. Its the same for all ships, a fighter chasing another fighter has to compensate for its own position, speed and alignment, as well as the speed and trajectory of its weaponry, relative to its target when firing. A turret shooting outside of its forward arc isn't any less accurate, stable or less able to compensate for those factors than if it was in arc. Perhaps the vectors are increased and the angle of deflection larger, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't gain the benefits of using primary weapons, which are an integral part of the game.

You assume a turreted ship would be screwed when an enemy is on its tail, but why would it suffer anymore than it would if the enemy is approaching in its front arc? The turrets can cover 360 (assuming 720 in a 3d environment) and have crew, targeting computers etc which handle the fire, so why would a turret ship suffer from the front or the side or the back, over any other angle? A fighter is screwed because it cant shoot back and relies on maneuver to evade shots or get out of its pursuers arc. A turret only has one of these problems.

The only problem I have with at least some of these suggestions, is they seem aimed at nerfing Fat ships. I'm not against a nerf here and there, quite often it's the best way to balance something.

But you can't nerf the Fat ships by making a change to how turrets work, because not all YT and VT's are portly, and a nerf that brings a 60 point ship into what someone may consider balance, is going to destroy the 40-50 point versions of those ships.

IMO the best thing to do, is to look at the crew and upgrades that make Fat ships so good and do something about them.

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.

We'll soon get a Secondary turret upgrade that shoots range 2-3. You can bet it'll follow the same rulings as secondary weapons.

And, I'm okay with it not being a TOTAL nerf. It's just taking power from one area and putting it into another. Sometimes, you don't need to remove overall stats to "fix" a problem. You can instead re-allocate those stats into something else and serve the same purpose. This way you run less risk of OVER nerfing a ship.

I just don't want to create changes that overall make killing things a lot HARDER. I think treating Primary Weapon Turrets as Secondary Weapon Turrets is a reasonable idea that makes sense. Why in the first place are Secondary Weapon Turrets treated differently than Primary Weapon Turrets? On a ship, they literal act the same way. At least missiles and cannons have some sense to them (missiles are guided by a target lock that tracks the enemy ship equally at close range and far range, Cannons are higher powered weapons don't lose as much energy over distances (okay, this case is lacking a bit, but another thread has been brought up to discuss this)).

It just seems pretty easy to create errata that states:

"Ships with turrets now treat all shots fired outside of the primary arc the same as Secondary weapons (Ignores Range bonus dice)." Etc etc etc.

I like this for many reasons, some of them being so Blaster Turrets and Ion Cannons don't get totally molested when they get into Range 1 of a Falcon. It isn't talked about much, but those Secondary turrets suffer greatly at Range 1, which is a pain. It will also be much more devastating when a ship flanks. It also means Falcons/Decis aren't COMPLETELY screwed when a ship gets on their tail. They can now rush to Range 3 and get an attack advantage. But trade shots with them at Range 1 and the turrets easily fall behind, rather than stay even.

I understand your point, but giving a ship 360 fire and cancelling range 3 benefits really helps turrets even more. The new turret does one damage at range 3 only. If you still allow pwt 360 fire and cancelling of range 3 benefits for the defender, you now have two turret ships that never leave the edge ever. They can face each other and take range 3 pot shots anyway they want. Flying safely apart and boosting to range 3 all the time. This is IMO overpowered.

As for being screwed when a big ship has an enemy on it's tail. Yes! But not as much as other ships, since they can still shoot. It makes sense all ships are screwed when an enemy is on its tail. That's why big ships have to fly with escorts to keep that from happening. So just go with the +1 attack die at range 1 when in primary arc only for PWT ships.

It will make the game more like it was intended to be.

You mean what you intend it to be. Assuming that you speak for the designers, or know their minds, is somewhat presumptuous.

Also please explain, what your justification for primary weapon turrets only gaining the range bonuses at range in arc is. Normal, non-turreted, ships get the bonus to reflect the increased accuracy at close range. There is a realistic reason behind it; weapons are more accurate at closer ranges. There is no reason why turreted weapons wouldn't be more accurate at range 1 in the same way. Nerfing anything for game balance 'just because' doesn't make it a good nerf. There isn't any particular reason why turrets would be more accurate in the forward arc only.

Even taking deflection gunnery into account, it still doesn't make much sense. A turret on a moving platform has to compensate for its own movement and that of the target - fine. But that remains constant whether the shot is taken in the forward arc or not. Its the same for all ships, a fighter chasing another fighter has to compensate for its own position, speed and alignment, as well as the speed and trajectory of its weaponry, relative to its target when firing. A turret shooting outside of its forward arc isn't any less accurate, stable or less able to compensate for those factors than if it was in arc. Perhaps the vectors are increased and the angle of deflection larger, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't gain the benefits of using primary weapons, which are an integral part of the game.

You assume a turreted ship would be screwed when an enemy is on its tail, but why would it suffer anymore than it would if the enemy is approaching in its front arc? The turrets can cover 360 (assuming 720 in a 3d environment) and have crew, targeting computers etc which handle the fire, so why would a turret ship suffer from the front or the side or the back, over any other angle? A fighter is screwed because it cant shoot back and relies on maneuver to evade shots or get out of its pursuers arc. A turret only has one of these problems.

logically, if turrets were that much better in every way, why wouldn't every ship in the galaxy have them? There must be a reason.

As I stated before, FFG introduced these ships when there were no cheap small ships and not much crew available. So paying extra was a way to limit them. Because of all the cheap small ships and crew upgrades, these ships are now way to easy to use and make them effective. As games change balance needs to be maintained. If it is not no one will play the game anymore, and you have Warhammer and 40K all over again. GW never understood balance, and because of that they have failed.

Back to the reason why you would only get +1 in a front arc for a big ship. It balances the ship. Also your leaving out the fact that small ships could get so close to the large ship that their turrets cannot shoot them. I understand your fluff reasons for wanting it the other way. Let's face it if your going off fluff why doesn't the defender has 6 dice attack, why doesn't the Phantom have less dice at ranges 2-3, since in the fluff all it's weapons were tuned to maximize damage at close range only, The reason why is game balance and fitting that balance into game guidelines.

So my take is if things remain the same they should increase the prices of all Ships with a PWT by 5 to 8 points. This forces large ships to take small ones for support and less crew if they don't. (Lets face it crew are just EPTS that every ship with a crew member can take) We know FFG won't do that, so the next best thing is a small nerf like I have suggested.

This balances the ship and intern makes the game what it should be about piloting your ships better than your opponent. Turrets are an important part of star wars, but game balance is more important, IMO.

In my last regional, I faced 6 turret lists and two of them were complete pancake lists. I went 4-2, now yes there is a way to beat them, but the games were very boring in most cases. The turret ship would skim the edge and shoot or retreat and shoot. Not worrying about flying correctly, because why should they. There is no penalty for it. Since they always get the plus one, they don't even need to point forward. Boring!!!

I seriously felt like I had been ripped off going to this, I paid for hotel and food and travel. To face 6 boring lists mostly composed of the same strategy. Phat, phat!

I went to this to see unique lists and meet players, but what I saw was basically everyone taking advantage of the rules of the game, because they all know that turrets are slightly overpowered now. I don't blame them for making use of this advantage, good players do that.

In two of games I lost I had my b-wing keyan, behind the VT and a YT. Did it matter! Nope. Did it matter that I skillfully flew behind him, nope! I tried to stay at range, but with his damage and remaining hull. No matter how well I flew, he could shoot me and arc dodge. He didn't even have to fly well, just face away and keep shooting. Was it fun, a bit! But it's very frustrating when you have to rack your brain to fly well and the other guy can go easy mode every turn. Especially after 14 hours.

That's it. I'm done my rant. I won't comment again.

thanks,

Not every ship has a turret because they are expensive and require extra crew to operate. This is represented in game by the turret ship having a high point cost with limited attack value.

I'm not sure exactly what your intent is exactly though with that argument. First you say that fluff is a good reason for there being some nebulous limit on the turret, and then argue that rules shouldn't be based on fluff.

I also don't get the other argument. You're saying that the Falcon is overpowered because of the existence of Z-95s?

logically, if turrets were that much better in every way, why wouldn't every ship in the galaxy have them? There must be a reason.

As I stated before, FFG introduced these ships when there were no cheap small ships and not much crew available. So paying extra was a way to limit them. Because of all the cheap small ships and crew upgrades, these ships are now way to easy to use and make them effective. As games change balance needs to be maintained. If it is not no one will play the game anymore, and you have Warhammer and 40K all over again. GW never understood balance, and because of that they have failed.

Back to the reason why you would only get +1 in a front arc for a big ship. It balances the ship. Also your leaving out the fact that small ships could get so close to the large ship that their turrets cannot shoot them. I understand your fluff reasons for wanting it the other way. Let's face it if your going off fluff why doesn't the defender has 6 dice attack, why doesn't the Phantom have less dice at ranges 2-3, since in the fluff all it's weapons were tuned to maximize damage at close range only, The reason why is game balance and fitting that balance into game guidelines.

So my take is if things remain the same they should increase the prices of all Ships with a PWT by 5 to 8 points. This forces large ships to take small ones for support and less crew if they don't. (Lets face it crew are just EPTS that every ship with a crew member can take) We know FFG won't do that, so the next best thing is a small nerf like I have suggested.

This balances the ship and intern makes the game what it should be about piloting your ships better than your opponent. Turrets are an important part of star wars, but game balance is more important, IMO.

In my last regional, I faced 6 turret lists and two of them were complete pancake lists. I went 4-2, now yes there is a way to beat them, but the games were very boring in most cases. The turret ship would skim the edge and shoot or retreat and shoot. Not worrying about flying correctly, because why should they. There is no penalty for it. Since they always get the plus one, they don't even need to point forward. Boring!!!

I seriously felt like I had been ripped off going to this, I paid for hotel and food and travel. To face 6 boring lists mostly composed of the same strategy. Phat, phat!

I went to this to see unique lists and meet players, but what I saw was basically everyone taking advantage of the rules of the game, because they all know that turrets are slightly overpowered now. I don't blame them for making use of this advantage, good players do that.

In two of games I lost I had my b-wing keyan, behind the VT and a YT. Did it matter! Nope. Did it matter that I skillfully flew behind him, nope! I tried to stay at range, but with his damage and remaining hull. No matter how well I flew, he could shoot me and arc dodge. He didn't even have to fly well, just face away and keep shooting. Was it fun, a bit! But it's very frustrating when you have to rack your brain to fly well and the other guy can go easy mode every turn. Especially after 14 hours.

That's it. I'm done my rant. I won't comment again.

thanks,

I actually sympathize a lot with what your saying. I agree that fat turrets which run away from you all game are, unimaginative, goat-blowingly dull and not particularly fun to play with or against. However using a fix which is mechanically contrived simply to create a perception of balance will create problems which resist common sense interpretation and require more rules exceptions in future. Nerfing boost on large base ships would go some way to beating the speed issue, allowing you to close or maintain range as you see fit. But nerfing weapons that follow the same rules as other weapons seems a little arbitrary, simply because they are on one particular platform.

Freighters shouldnt be able to outmaneuver fighters, in fact they CANT, which is why they need turrets or the fighters just park behind them and nibble them to death with impunity.

I agree that turret blindspots is a realistic interpretation, however they would be hard to model in a game as abstracted as this without making it something obnoxious like a range 1 donut, like Dash and THAT was done for different reasons. If you want to see how complex real turret arc mechanics are go and play Wings Of Glory. Its a great game, I love it, but it makes my eyes bleed every time I look at my B-25 or HE-111 play card (guess how often I play with my bombers). Different arcs depending on the relative altitude of the target, different damages due to gun loadouts, different facings for each turret.

X Wing on the other hand has a simple and reasonably representative turret mechanic. It works because I think it respects the basic effects that turrets deliver. Nerfing it in the way you are proposing undermines that. I think the root cause of the fat turrets problem is not entirely due to turret rules. If we did what you suggest, turrets would still be able to run away, making them as difficult to kill as they are now - which I think is more problematic. Nerfing speed - allowing pursuing fighters to close and make the kill more quickly seems more 'realistic' in that regard.

PWTs have value

[...]

all in all, it's a mind-numbingly dumbed down experience to have to endure a game against a PWT but you know what they say (you don't know what you got until you lose it)

Okay, what is PWT?

PWTs have value

[...]

all in all, it's a mind-numbingly dumbed down experience to have to endure a game against a PWT but you know what they say (you don't know what you got until you lose it)

Okay, what is PWT?

PWT = primary weapon turret

No! It means Pancake with Turret!

Anyone else have pancakes for breakfast?

Ok after reading all the responses through several times i have concluded the following, in general turrets fit with the game, and are reasonable in game play terms. No one can defend the fatness as being a good or essential part of the game and without it the game would suffer, instead it is argued

1) that people need to be better to beat them.

2) stop complaining it exists.

Niether are really satisfactorily answering the question i possed..

Hang on there slick. I posted two reasons that are neither of those.

1. They pay in squad points, deeply.

2. They pay with a reduced number of red dice on the table.

The fatness is a direct result of the number of squad points tied up in the ship.

Anyone who's played X-wing Alliance will know that firing from the turret of a maneuvering ship is a lot harder than firing the guns forward.

The reason's pretty simple - when you're flying the ship you know exactly where you're going, and so instinctively take the ship's movements (your movements) into account when aiming. However with a turret you're basically at the whim of the pilot - if they jink in any way, you don't know they're going to do that, and it'll throw your shot off.

This is actually reflected in the films:

- Chewie doesn't pull any hefty evasive maneuvers when Luke and Han are in the turrets in Hope - in fact he flies straight and level to give them a stable firing platform while they escape

- At Yavin Han shoots Vader's wingman with his forward guns - Chewie isn't in the turret

- In Empire while Han is evading TIES and Star Destroyers like crazy no-one jumps into the turrets to get the fighters off their tail

- In Jedi, all shots of the Falcon at Endor show it shooting TIEs with it's forward guns

- It also doesn't shoot the pursuers when making the Death Star run

(Historically planes with turrets also tend to be slower and far less maneuverable than the fighters - think B-17s flying in formation. Noticeably the B-17's weakest aspect was it's front - Luftwaffe pilots preferred to engage them head-on if possible...)

The conclusion? Fighter-style forward guns are much more effective - the turrets are mostly used for defending in a stern-chase!

Perhaps turrets should be penalised for firing out of arc, but only if the turreted ship turns, or turns hard. That way they have three options:

- Fly like any other fighter and get the enemy in arc

- Fly straight (or maybe straight/bank) for maximum out-of-arc firepower (stable firing platform) but but making it harder to get out of arc themselves

- Use their excessive speed and maneuverability to get out of arc, but suffer reduced firepower

Maybe that would add a bit more in the way of out-thinking and out-flying for a turret to do.

Just a thought...

Have a little patience. Fat turrets didn't appear overnight and they wont disappear by morning. It took awhile for the 'fatness' to develop. How long did it take for the swarm to run its course? The games only been around for what,3 years? Fat pancakes will be replaced by something else. I'm curious to see what flies at World's in November. Dollars to donuts it wont be a pwt in the winner's circle.

Another thing to consider is skill of the guy pushing the plastic. Heaver would give a good showing flying an Eindecker and using a slingshot for a ranged weapon. It's been mentioned before that a pwt in the hands of a skilled player is more difficult to beat than one flown by a hack (like me).

Aww.. the time is late, the game is young. Relax, fly casual and watch the game develop. By this time next year the complaints will be about the Tie Advanced or the Houndstooth. Also, brush up on the Logic of Failure aka the law of unintended consequences.

G'night

Have a little patience. Fat turrets didn't appear overnight and they wont disappear by morning. It took awhile for the 'fatness' to develop. How long did it take for the swarm to run its course? The games only been around for what,3 years? Fat pancakes will be replaced by something else. I'm curious to see what flies at World's in November. Dollars to donuts it wont be a pwt in the winner's circle.

That's not exactly true. Double Falcons were quite prevalent during the 2013 Regionals (aka Store Championships). While I don't think it is as big a problem as many make them out to be, the issues with Falcons have existed since release. Wave 4 caused issues when the Phantoms sort of discouraged the Falcon's natural predator, BBBB (now BBBBZ).

OK here's my 2 cents and will try to address the original task which is to convince the op that fat turrets are good for the game.

Fat turrets is a type of list that has certain types of play styles. I don't feel like I should try to discourage anyone from playing the game how they want too as long as it's legal according to the rules. Honestly I don't even mind if they fortress up and never move and I have played against that. I look at each game as a challenge to be overcome. Now some lists I may like more than others and some play styles more than others but I'm not going to discourage anyone from ever running anything, I think that kind of attitude is bad for x wing way worse than fat turrets. So why are fat turrets good for x wing? Because they are a legal option that the player might truly enjoy using so who am I to say whether or not there build or play style is good or bad for x wing.

Turrets are a part of the Star Wars universe and should have a place. I do find it confusing and disingenuous that there is a deferentiation between Primary and Secondary turrets. I don't care for flying them or flying against them. They are boring and somewhat dumbed down. Flying a big ship is undoubtedly tougher than flying a small based ship. But no turret ever suffered fire from an enemy ship without being able to return fire (unless he landed on an asteroid). So maybe you didn't guess right in a fat turret and get a shot, but guess what? He's not getting a shot at you either. Barring obstacles mistakes don't hurt you in a fat turret. They may not help you but they won't hurt you. Fat Turrets feel like X Wing for Dummies or X Wing cliff notes to me. Just cause you fly one doesn't make you great but flying one can make a pilot seem much better than he actually is.

Now, for the OP actual question. What are turrets good for X Wing? They are good for X Wing because they are a part of the Star Wars narrative and they belong. The second reason is because when we are progressing at anything and we face a superior opponent we have two choices: give up or get better. Simply put turrets will make you a better player. If you can beat the fat turrets consistently you'll likely beat anything else.

Finally, what should be done about turrets? Well, likely nothing. Though I suspect some of the new upgrades and mechanics will be created with the turret in mind. If it were up to me turrets would have four quadrants: a forawrd arc (as normal), left and right arcs and a rear arc (as the Firesprays secondary arc). Each turret would have to "activate" two quadrants at the beginning of the activation phase. They have the advantage of knowing their own maneuver but they would then be required to use similar piloting skill as all other ships to get shots at an opponent. It would still be easier for them and no damage would change but it would remove the "easy button". As far as the fluff and physics go while a turret is omnidirectional it cannot line up two shots simultaneously which are 180 degree opposites. A turret must choose a general direction over any given unit of time but cannot choose them all at once. Since we've already inexplicably parsed primary weapon turrets from secondary weapon turrets this should likely apply only to primary weapon turrets if only on the basis of gameplay and balance (all secondary turrets already have some limitation). Thoughts?

Anyone who's played X-wing Alliance will know that firing from the turret of a maneuvering ship is a lot harder than firing the guns forward.

The reason's pretty simple - when you're flying the ship you know exactly where you're going, and so instinctively take the ship's movements (your movements) into account when aiming. However with a turret you're basically at the whim of the pilot - if they jink in any way, you don't know they're going to do that, and it'll throw your shot off.

This is actually reflected in the films:

- Chewie doesn't pull any hefty evasive maneuvers when Luke and Han are in the turrets in Hope - in fact he flies straight and level to give them a stable firing platform while they escape

- At Yavin Han shoots Vader's wingman with his forward guns - Chewie isn't in the turret

- In Empire while Han is evading TIES and Star Destroyers like crazy no-one jumps into the turrets to get the fighters off their tail

- In Jedi, all shots of the Falcon at Endor show it shooting TIEs with it's forward guns

- It also doesn't shoot the pursuers when making the Death Star run

(Historically planes with turrets also tend to be slower and far less maneuverable than the fighters - think B-17s flying in formation. Noticeably the B-17's weakest aspect was it's front - Luftwaffe pilots preferred to engage them head-on if possible...)

The conclusion? Fighter-style forward guns are much more effective - the turrets are mostly used for defending in a stern-chase!

Perhaps turrets should be penalised for firing out of arc, but only if the turreted ship turns, or turns hard. That way they have three options:

- Fly like any other fighter and get the enemy in arc

- Fly straight (or maybe straight/bank) for maximum out-of-arc firepower (stable firing platform) but but making it harder to get out of arc themselves

- Use their excessive speed and maneuverability to get out of arc, but suffer reduced firepower

Maybe that would add a bit more in the way of out-thinking and out-flying for a turret to do.

Just a thought...

Exactly, which is why I suggests the range 2 limit outside of arc! I do like the ignore range 1 bonus idea too.