I've only been playing Xwing for about 6 weeks now (a very recent convert), and so i don't have much experience of the game. But i do have a great deal of miniature wargames experience (if that has any bearing).

So, i don't have any experience of the dull swarm stage, or much in depth understanding of the issues fuelling the 'fat turret' objections.

I will weigh in with an observation though, based on the two games i had last week.

Game1

I took a B-wing, A-wing, 2 X-wings vs a Decimator (with fat turret build), TIE bomber and TIE interceptor

I won, taking the Decimator out fairly easy

Game 2

I took Firespray (Krassis Trellix), 3 TIEs vs a classic Fat Han build and 2 X-wings

I lost, but only after all the small ships were destroyed and the Firespray and Falcon battered each other down to 1 Hit each remaining.

OK, so, my observation in both games is that the skill of the player and his tactical maneuvering choices was the winning factor in both games, not the presence of a PWT.

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.

Yep. I first experienced this while playing Star Wars Galaxies. And it never occurred to me until I tried to do it.

It's almost impossible to hit anything in a turret while the person flying the ship is actually trying to maneuver.

It's one thing using a turret on, like, a huge ship, that's barely moving. But trying to do it in a YT-1300 or something is like the difference between shooting from a tank turret, and shooting from a tank turret where the Earth is constantly flipping upside down.

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.

Yep. I first experienced this while playing Star Wars Galaxies. And it never occurred to me until I tried to do it.

It's almost impossible to hit anything in a turret while the person flying the ship is actually trying to maneuver.

It's one thing using a turret on, like, a huge ship, that's barely moving. But trying to do it in a YT-1300 or something is like the difference between shooting from a tank turret, and shooting from a tank turret where the Earth is constantly flipping upside down.

What this looks like is if the turret is activated and is pointing straight forward, then the ship turns left 90 degrees, the turret is still pointing in the same absolute direction, but 90 degrees right compared to the facing of the ship, all without the gunner touching a control.

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.

Yep. I first experienced this while playing Star Wars Galaxies. And it never occurred to me until I tried to do it.

It's almost impossible to hit anything in a turret while the person flying the ship is actually trying to maneuver.

It's one thing using a turret on, like, a huge ship, that's barely moving. But trying to do it in a YT-1300 or something is like the difference between shooting from a tank turret, and shooting from a tank turret where the Earth is constantly flipping upside down.

There are also turrets that are stabilized, modern tank turrets do that. In BF4 all turret type things are stabilized too. I'd have to imagine that in a galaxy where space travel is about as exciting at picking up the groceries, they would have matched modern day technology as far as turret stability to simplify the job of the gunner.

What this looks like is if the turret is activated and is pointing straight forward, then the ship turns left 90 degrees, the turret is still pointing in the same absolute direction, but 90 degrees right compared to the facing of the ship, all without the gunner touching a control.

Yeah but they didn't have that in the 70's

More seriously just because we have it it does not follow aliens would have it, other sentient life will almost certainly never of thought of technology we take for granted and vice versa.

There are also turrets that are stabilized, modern tank turrets do that. In BF4 all turret type things are stabilized too. I'd have to imagine that in a galaxy where space travel is about as exciting at picking up the groceries, they would have matched modern day technology as far as turret stability to simplify the job of the gunner.

in a galaxy where space travel is about as exciting as picking groceries, there are also sounds in space and everything seems to have gone a touch WW2

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.

This is exactly it. Everyone has their kryptonite. Mine is a good pilot flying Corran or Brobots. Should I discourage a player because I don't find them fun to play against? Is it rational to tell someone that what they are flying is not "good" for the game?

I'll let FFG determine that. Until then, whatever is legal to play is considered "good" for the game. Don't discourage other people to fly something they like just because it will fit your play style better. Get over it or play something else.

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).

Was the problem due to having 13 HP each? There's a big difference between flying 8 Ties with a combined HP of 24 and 2 ships with a combined HP of 26. It's theoretically possible for 8 Ties to one-shot a Falcon but astronomically unlikely. New big ship requires a whole different approach to counter. I think Heaver flew XXBB at worlds in 13 and a Fat Han ZZZ IN 14. I think we're seeing a natural evolution of the ship as players tweak the builds. The 2014 Worlds Final is a great example of that. Amost a complete mirror build. I think the shift away from pwts has begun and will continue. They'll still be around but the flavor of the month will change and the next big thing will become The Next Big Thing. Turrets are part of the lore and lure of Star Wars. Heck, if it wasn't for the Falcon's ability Harrison Ford would have only been in Episode 4. ;-)

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.

Yep. I first experienced this while playing Star Wars Galaxies. And it never occurred to me until I tried to do it.

It's almost impossible to hit anything in a turret while the person flying the ship is actually trying to maneuver.

It's one thing using a turret on, like, a huge ship, that's barely moving. But trying to do it in a YT-1300 or something is like the difference between shooting from a tank turret, and shooting from a tank turret where the Earth is constantly flipping upside down.

There are also turrets that are stabilized, modern tank turrets do that. In BF4 all turret type things are stabilized too. I'd have to imagine that in a galaxy where space travel is about as exciting at picking up the groceries, they would have matched modern day technology as far as turret stability to simplify the job of the gunner.

What this looks like is if the turret is activated and is pointing straight forward, then the ship turns left 90 degrees, the turret is still pointing in the same absolute direction, but 90 degrees right compared to the facing of the ship, all without the gunner touching a control.

Yeah but they didn't have that in the 70's

More seriously just because we have it it does not follow aliens would have it, other sentient life will almost certainly never of thought of technology we take for granted and vice versa.

Actually vertically stabilised turrets were used in WWII.

Right now a tiny percentage of the X Wing builds (Fat Turrets) are eating up more than 50% of the tournament pie. Their greed and avarice is causing us all to suffer. My poor XXXXZ build was doomed from the start. Where are my socialist win redistribution brothers (and sisters) in X Wing? I call for a revolution. Occupy X Wing! We're tired of the 1% FT getting all the wins and were not gonna take it any more!

OCCUPY X WING!!!

There are also turrets that are stabilized, modern tank turrets do that. In BF4 all turret type things are stabilized too. I'd have to imagine that in a galaxy where space travel is about as exciting at picking up the groceries, they would have matched modern day technology as far as turret stability to simplify the job of the gunner.

Granted, but tanks also tend not to flip upside down or turn in other ways such that it would be impossible to track the target without shooting through your own ship when they move.

Was the problem due to having 13 HP each? There's a big difference between flying 8 Ties with a combined HP of 24 and 2 ships with a combined HP of 26. It's theoretically possible for 8 Ties to one-shot a Falcon but astronomically unlikely. New big ship requires a whole different approach to counter. I think Heaver flew XXBB at worlds in 13 and a Fat Han ZZZ IN 14. I think we're seeing a natural evolution of the ship as players tweak the builds. The 2014 Worlds Final is a great example of that. Amost a complete mirror build. I think the shift away from pwts has begun and will continue. They'll still be around but the flavor of the month will change and the next big thing will become The Next Big Thing. Turrets are part of the lore and lure of Star Wars. Heck, if it wasn't for the Falcon's ability Harrison Ford would have only been in Episode 4. ;-)

There were multiple issues. The primary one was that the 33 pt barrier for a full win nearly knocked out Swarms from competition if they were paired up against each other. You also have to look at what was available in a Wave 2 enviroment. The Swarm, which was hurt by the rules by random chance, Triple BHs, XXXX. One thing to remember, the Wave 2 Falcons were more offensive oriented and for the most part, many did not use Uniques.

I will note, while Falcons have been a tournament presence since release, they have not been static.

Was the problem due to having 13 HP each? There's a big difference between flying 8 Ties with a combined HP of 24 and 2 ships with a combined HP of 26. It's theoretically possible for 8 Ties to one-shot a Falcon but astronomically unlikely. New big ship requires a whole different approach to counter. I think Heaver flew XXBB at worlds in 13 and a Fat Han ZZZ IN 14. I think we're seeing a natural evolution of the ship as players tweak the builds. The 2014 Worlds Final is a great example of that. Amost a complete mirror build. I think the shift away from pwts has begun and will continue. They'll still be around but the flavor of the month will change and the next big thing will become The Next Big Thing. Turrets are part of the lore and lure of Star Wars. Heck, if it wasn't for the Falcon's ability Harrison Ford would have only been in Episode 4. ;-)

There were multiple issues. The primary one was that the 33 pt barrier for a full win nearly knocked out Swarms from competition if they were paired up against each other. You also have to look at what was available in a Wave 2 enviroment. The Swarm, which was hurt by the rules by random chance, Triple BHs, XXXX. One thing to remember, the Wave 2 Falcons were more offensive oriented and for the most part, many did not use Uniques.

I will note, while Falcons have been a tournament presence since release, they have not been static.

I wasn't around in the early days of the game so I'm not sure what you mean about the 33 pt barrier. I agree they haven't been static. The EPT and upgrade crew cards have altered the builds dramatically. This is one of the things I was referring to as an unintended consequence. There are far more players than play testers and it's possible that some of these builds didn't reveal themselves in testing. Voila! A Fat Han. It's also why I think that the meta is changing. As new ships and cards become available the type of preferred builds will change. Fat pwts will always be with us. For some players they are just easier to fly. You only have to worry about 6 or 8 ships, only 2 of which are yours. You have a strong attack that can't dodged, high health to cover your errors in movement and the ability to bugout and regroup if necessary. From a real world military point of view that's having your cake all by yourself. Very appealing. The U.S.S. Constitution is a good example. She carried more sail than other ships her size, more guns than a British Frigate and in rough seas could go toe to toe with a 100 gun ship of the line when the lower gun ports were underwater. And yes, the British complained about her too.

This game isn't static, it changes with each game played as players revise strategies and each new release. PWTS aren't invincible and I think they have reached the end of their evolutionary life. Unless or until FFG comes up with new crew or cards that breathes new life into them.

In a game of movement where you can't remain stationary, with some exceptions, two pwts nose to nose sucks. Legal? Yes but not in the spirit of the game. And in the spirit of the game I don't think it wise to nerf the turrets for several reasons. First, we don't know what FFG has in works. This may seem obvious but they're probably looking 2-3 years out. Second, The Logic of Failure. Changes (house rules) made to tame pwts may result in them becoming worthless to fly. While this may make some players happy as a kid with a new puppy, it's not good for the game as a whole. People are way too impatient. Have some faith that FFG knows what they're doing.

The resign of turrets as the be all, end all of design is only in some people's mind. While they will always be with us some other build will become the next 'king of the hill'.

Pretty much during Regionals (what is now Store Championships) of 2013, in order to get a full victory, you had to kill 33 more points than your opponent. In a Swarm vs Swarm situation, this means you have to kill 3 more TIEs than your oppoent, which is a rare occurence.

Pretty much during Regionals (what is now Store Championships) of 2013, in order to get a full victory, you had to kill 33 more points than your opponent. In a Swarm vs Swarm situation, this means you have to kill 3 more TIEs than your oppoent, which is a rare occurence.

Is this why the MOV is such a big thing now? New rules replaced the old scoring method? I can see why a pwt would be a distinct advantage flying against a swarm. The turret could pop 3 Ties then play keep away for the remainder of the game. I'm beginning to see why some players hate pancakes. When did they change scoring method?

No. The vast majority of talke about Margin of Victory is talking about the primary tie breaker, which is used to compare those with the same amount of victory points. I'm talking about conditions for a full win. While they use the same numbers, the effects are much different. Around Gencon of 2013, they altered the full victory conditions to be only killing more than 12 points than your opponent, letting TIE Swarms get back into the top tables if faced with another TIE Swarm.

No. The vast majority of talke about Margin of Victory is talking about the primary tie breaker, which is used to compare those with the same amount of victory points. I'm talking about conditions for a full win. While they use the same numbers, the effects are much different. Around Gencon of 2013, they altered the full victory conditions to be only killing more than 12 points than your opponent, letting TIE Swarms get back into the top tables if faced with another TIE Swarm.

Ok, now I'm confuses. A full win? I thought you added your kill points to 100, the opponent did the same and the difference was the MOV. Should I read the tourney rules rather than bother you will basic questions? Since I'll never play beyond a store competition I never bothered to read the tournament rules.

There is no skill to flying at each other and kturning. That's when xwing was really boring.

Dash Rendar is the most nuanced and skill-required ship in the game.

No. The vast majority of talke about Margin of Victory is talking about the primary tie breaker, which is used to compare those with the same amount of victory points. I'm talking about conditions for a full win. While they use the same numbers, the effects are much different. Around Gencon of 2013, they altered the full victory conditions to be only killing more than 12 points than your opponent, letting TIE Swarms get back into the top tables if faced with another TIE Swarm.

Ok, now I'm confuses. A full win? I thought you added your kill points to 100, the opponent did the same and the difference was the MOV. Should I read the tourney rules rather than bother you will basic questions? Since I'll never play beyond a store competition I never bothered to read the tournament rules.

It wouldn't hurt.

But basically, you get Victory Points for whether you have a full win or partial win. I think it is 5 and 3. Those points are the first thing compared to determine ranking. In a lot of ways, it is just how many games you have won.

Margin of Victory is the first tie breaker when determining ranking in a tournament. When you have two players with 15 victory points, you then look at the Margin of Victory to determine who is ranked higher. This tiebreaker is what most refer to when talking about Marging of Victory. It has different effects on a tournament then what determines a full victory or not.

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.

Yep. I first experienced this while playing Star Wars Galaxies. And it never occurred to me until I tried to do it.

It's almost impossible to hit anything in a turret while the person flying the ship is actually trying to maneuver.

It's one thing using a turret on, like, a huge ship, that's barely moving. But trying to do it in a YT-1300 or something is like the difference between shooting from a tank turret, and shooting from a tank turret where the Earth is constantly flipping upside down.

There are also turrets that are stabilized, modern tank turrets do that. In BF4 all turret type things are stabilized too. I'd have to imagine that in a galaxy where space travel is about as exciting at picking up the groceries, they would have matched modern day technology as far as turret stability to simplify the job of the gunner.

What this looks like is if the turret is activated and is pointing straight forward, then the ship turns left 90 degrees, the turret is still pointing in the same absolute direction, but 90 degrees right compared to the facing of the ship, all without the gunner touching a control.

Yeah but they didn't have that in the 70's

More seriously just because we have it it does not follow aliens would have it, other sentient life will almost certainly never of thought of technology we take for granted and vice versa.

I am not so sure they didn't have stabilizers in the 70's. The Leopard 1 was one of the first tanks to have it, and i think it was there before Star Wars. I just don't know which version of it got the stabilizer and if that predates SW.

There are also turrets that are stabilized, modern tank turrets do that. In BF4 all turret type things are stabilized too. I'd have to imagine that in a galaxy where space travel is about as exciting at picking up the groceries, they would have matched modern day technology as far as turret stability to simplify the job of the gunner.

Granted, but tanks also tend not to flip upside down or turn in other ways such that it would be impossible to track the target without shooting through your own ship when they move.

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.

Yep. I first experienced this while playing Star Wars Galaxies. And it never occurred to me until I tried to do it.

It's almost impossible to hit anything in a turret while the person flying the ship is actually trying to maneuver.

It's one thing using a turret on, like, a huge ship, that's barely moving. But trying to do it in a YT-1300 or something is like the difference between shooting from a tank turret, and shooting from a tank turret where the Earth is constantly flipping upside down.

There are also turrets that are stabilized, modern tank turrets do that. In BF4 all turret type things are stabilized too. I'd have to imagine that in a galaxy where space travel is about as exciting at picking up the groceries, they would have matched modern day technology as far as turret stability to simplify the job of the gunner.

What this looks like is if the turret is activated and is pointing straight forward, then the ship turns left 90 degrees, the turret is still pointing in the same absolute direction, but 90 degrees right compared to the facing of the ship, all without the gunner touching a control.

Yeah but they didn't have that in the 70's

More seriously just because we have it it does not follow aliens would have it, other sentient life will almost certainly never of thought of technology we take for granted and vice versa.

I am not so sure they didn't have stabilizers in the 70's. The Leopard 1 was one of the first tanks to have it, and i think it was there before Star Wars. I just don't know which version of it got the stabilizer and if that predates SW.

= it's a joke that's why my very next line starts with "more seriously".

There is no skill to flying at each other and kturning. That's when xwing was really boring.

Dash Rendar is the most nuanced and skill-required ship in the game.

There is no real skill in using your large base and boost to outrun fighters that, by any reasonable simulation of what fighters should be capable of, should be able to overtake you.

There is no skill involved in landing on asteroids and being able to ignore those effects to barrel roll/boost off and continue to throw modified dice back at your pursuers. Something which no other ship in the game can do.

Super Dash is not one of the most skill-requiring or nuanced ships in the game when any player can net-list and copy winning tactics.

It isn't the only tactic seen with fat turrets, but it does happen and in my experience it happens more often than it doesn't.

While I don't have a problem with the concept of point fortressing turrets, I do have a problem with their ability to dictate range engagements to all but the most agile speed 5, boost fighters, the same fighters that suffer most against heavily modified turrets. I do have a problem when a single tactic can be used in such an unbalancing way. I don't like the fact that any turret player who chooses to fight close in, or joust, effectively surrenders the most effective tactic available to them, because it allows their opponent to get into range and arc and potentially block you, something fat, action dependent turrets are vulnerable to.

I don't even have a problem with circling the outside edge if it was possible for most fighters to overtake them. I don't think the problem lies in turret fatness, but in specific combinations of upgrades and large base-ness which prevent the apex predators (which should be fighters) from being able to effectively deal with armed freighters.

There is no skill to flying at each other and kturning. That's when xwing was really boring.

Dash Rendar is the most nuanced and skill-required ship in the game.

There is no real skill in flying round the outside of the play area in that huge range 2 corridor, which shows up on every single table.

There is no real skill in using your large base and boost to outrun fighters that, by any reasonable simulation of what fighters should be capable of, should be able to overtake you.

There is no skill involved in landing on asteroids and being able to ignore those effects to barrel roll/boost off and continue to throw modified dice back at your pursuers. Something which no other ship in the game can do.

Super Dash is not one of the most skill-requiring or nuanced ships in the game when any player can net-list and copy winning tactics.

It isn't the only tactic seen with fat turrets, but it does happen and in my experience it happens more often than it doesn't.

While I don't have a problem with the concept of point fortressing turrets, I do have a problem with their ability to dictate range engagements to all but the most agile speed 5, boost fighters, the same fighters that suffer most against heavily modified turrets. I do have a problem when a single tactic can be used in such an unbalancing way. I don't like the fact that any turret player who chooses to fight close in, or joust, effectively surrenders the most effective tactic available to them, because it allows their opponent to get into range and arc and potentially block you, something fat, action dependent turrets are vulnerable to.

I don't even have a problem with circling the outside edge if it was possible for most fighters to overtake them. I don't think the problem lies in turret fatness, but in specific combinations of upgrades and large base-ness which prevent the apex predators (which should be fighters) from being able to effectively deal with armed freighters.

There is no skill to flying at each other and kturning. That's when xwing was really boring.

Dash Rendar is the most nuanced and skill-required ship in the game.

There is no real skill in flying round the outside of the play area in that huge range 2 corridor, which shows up on every single table.

There is no real skill in using your large base and boost to outrun fighters that, by any reasonable simulation of what fighters should be capable of, should be able to overtake you.

There is no skill involved in landing on asteroids and being able to ignore those effects to barrel roll/boost off and continue to throw modified dice back at your pursuers. Something which no other ship in the game can do.

Super Dash is not one of the most skill-requiring or nuanced ships in the game when any player can net-list and copy winning tactics.

It isn't the only tactic seen with fat turrets, but it does happen and in my experience it happens more often than it doesn't.

While I don't have a problem with the concept of point fortressing turrets, I do have a problem with their ability to dictate range engagements to all but the most agile speed 5, boost fighters, the same fighters that suffer most against heavily modified turrets. I do have a problem when a single tactic can be used in such an unbalancing way. I don't like the fact that any turret player who chooses to fight close in, or joust, effectively surrenders the most effective tactic available to them, because it allows their opponent to get into range and arc and potentially block you, something fat, action dependent turrets are vulnerable to.

I don't even have a problem with circling the outside edge if it was possible for most fighters to overtake them. I don't think the problem lies in turret fatness, but in specific combinations of upgrades and large base-ness which prevent the apex predators (which should be fighters) from being able to effectively deal with armed freighters.

Lol trust me watch a good player dash, it takes a ton of skill to be effective with him. Also that "super" dash isn't even the best build for him but that's a whole different topic.

If you choose to fight close with a turret you have to be able to maneuver as well, if not better than if you were flying a small based ship. I agree. Leaving specific builds aside, I have no problem with players who use these tactics. Super Dash in particular is just (in my opinion) the most able to abuse the edge circling tactic because with boost, barrel roll, ability to ignore obstacles and PTL he is next to impossible to block if the circling player is even remotely conscious. He isnt the only problem, but at least Fat Han suffers if he lands on a rock.

Defaulting to orbiting tactics whilst abusing the speed that large base and boost gives you is pretty boring tactic, frustrating for your opponent and it also underlines the imbalance that exists when large, slow civilian freighters can outrun fighters. I have yet to hear a single good justification for why this SHOULD be the case as it is now.

If chubby turrets were slower and therefore HAD to fight eventually (i.e. they couldn't just run away all game) it would force turret players to be good at maneuver and being able to fly well rather than just being able to make left or right turns whilst running away. You dont have to be good to just circle the board.

I am not trying to bash large or turreted ships, as they have their place. Im also not bashing players who enjoy flying turreted ships in general - I own and fly all large based ships. I just dont believe that this one particularly obnoxious aspect of fat turret syndrome is good for the game - which was the whole point of this thread.

Skirting combat and avoiding engagements with multiple enemies at a time adds skill, complexity, and maneuvering to the game. Go fly a fat turret directly at BBBBZ and tell me what feels unsportsmanlike then.