I think two very serious things that people should take away from this are:

I think the third thing people should take away from this is: "The R1 doughnut hole is an exploitable and serious weakness of massed TLT lists" does not mean "LOL JUST GO TO R1 AND NONE OF THE TLTs WILL BE ABLE TO SHOOT AT YOU EVAAAAAAR" or "TLT spam isn't a strong list".

It made me wish imperials had a smallbase turret which i could put ruthless on...

I want to add that In epic Grays escorted with Daggers will be a thing when I go Rebel. Greys with TLT(and maybe one autoblaster, probably not) Daggers with flachette or HLC or Mangler - depends on my mood, likely flechette as i'd want a GR75 loaded for jamming/slicing.

I actually have a couple of lists very similar to that - I think I did both a version that is Blues with Greys, and one that's Daggers with Golds, depending on what upgrades and PS I was looking for. You still get enough TLT to do the TLT thing, but also have a couple ships with some more (potential) damage output, especially versus enemy ships carrying TLT, that can get in close and scrap with them.

Another thing I've found with some of my Dash lists - particularly with a couple Rookies, or Vrill with HLC, is that where most people want to counter TLT by rushing in close, the right build can survive by doing the opposite. Stay at range 3 and trade - but try and control distance to where you're at range 3 to one, maybe two, of the TLT and not the entire pack. Hit them with HLC or something and try to hammer one of them down early.

What I think a lot of people overlook is that the range equation works both ways - yes: there is a donut at range 1 that can be exploited to avoid one or two of them, at least, shooting you every turn. But there is also a very good chance that if you have the firepower to hang back at Range 3, there's a very good chance that if you are able to manipulate that distance carefully you can be just outside range 3 to several of them, as well.

So to sum up and answer the question in the title:

Because in testing numerous ways of defeating this list were probably tried and tested, due to it being powerful but also burdened with a close range gap and low PS.

So to sum up and answer the question in the title:

Because in testing numerous ways of defeating this list were probably tried and tested, due to it being powerful but also burdened with a close range gap and low PS.

it's balanced

simplified

unless we're talking about "fun," in which case replace "it's balanced" with "it's subjective" or "it's not PWTs"

I think two very serious things that people should take away from this are:

1. Don't blame the playtesters - especially right there in the subject line. Seriously, just don't. Not only do (most of) you not know the process, but it's making rather huge assumptions that

A. testers agree on everything (because the community clearly does, right?

B. that they are always listened to, and

C. changes don't occasionally get made for reasons even the testers involved aren't always privy to.

To be fair, the OP didnt blame the playtestERS, he questioned (not blamed) playtestING. I.E: the process as such.

"Seriously, just don't".....or what? Sometimes inadequate (or non-existant) playtesting IS the culprit. Source: Star Trek Attack Wing.

haven't read all the posts in this thread, but ...

1) TLTx4 feels to me to be nerf-bat worthy. that's my intuition, and I'm curious to see if the empirical data confirms it. like the phantom before it, it makes it so that every list I'm building right now has to consider "how does this deal with TLTx4 spam?" yes, four auto-thrusting Interceptors will normally crush a TLTx4 list, just like a 97/98 point ChiraFel list crushed the old Phantom meta. when I build lists for tournament play, I'm designing for coverage over significant percentage of the Rock-Paper-Scissors meta, and TLTx4 mucks that up for me.

2) assuming the data plays out in concordance with my intuition, my current thoughts on a"nerf" is to put the "Twin" into TLT: max of two TLTs per list!

The difference, I think, from my own testing is that while 4xTLT requires consideration, it requires consideration mostly in the planning stages, and less in the list building stages. While I think there are probably some builds that really suffer hard, most can have a decent chance because of the stiffness of the 4xTLT list. I do think that 4xTLT, perhaps more than other lists, requires some forethought in the planning stages to figure out how your squad best deals with it, but only because it is so unlike anything else in the game right now. It feels stronger than it is if you don't know how to approach it. Contrast this to the pre-nerf Phantom, where if you didn't have the tools, you were boned. It could respond instantly to your decisions. TLT blocks can't do that. They have to play turns ahead to not get caught flat-footed.

Another thing I've found with some of my Dash lists - particularly with a couple Rookies, or Vrill with HLC, is that where most people want to counter TLT by rushing in close, the right build can survive by doing the opposite. Stay at range 3 and trade - but try and control distance to where you're at range 3 to one, maybe two, of the TLT and not the entire pack. Hit them with HLC or something and try to hammer one of them down early.

What I think a lot of people overlook is that the range equation works both ways - yes: there is a donut at range 1 that can be exploited to avoid one or two of them, at least, shooting you every turn. But there is also a very good chance that if you have the firepower to hang back at Range 3, there's a very good chance that if you are able to manipulate that distance carefully you can be just outside range 3 to several of them, as well.

This, absolutely this. It was mentioned a few times in the 20+ page "dealing with TLTs" thread that Vorpal Sword started, but it always bears repeating at times like this. Furthermore, a well rounded list can kind of do both. If it has some decent jousters with better range control than the TLTs (which might only mean dials that are a little better) as well as a fast Arc Dodger, it could literally threaten to both thread the needle to make the Arc Dodger safe while at the same time concentrate on one side of the formation to limit return shots. It's like the combination of Cavalry and Artillery to a Napoleonic infantry square. Break formation and the Cavalry cut you to pieces, hold the square, and the Artillery blast you apart. In this case hold formation and the Arc Dodger gets free shots, and loosen the formation and the jousters get 2v1 shots on you. If the non-TLT squad has a higher PS (likely), then deploying afterward will be a huge advantage as well.

I think two very serious things that people should take away from this are:

1. Don't blame the playtesters - especially right there in the subject line. Seriously, just don't. Not only do (most of) you not know the process, but it's making rather huge assumptions that

A. testers agree on everything (because the community clearly does, right?

B. that they are always listened to, and

C. changes don't occasionally get made for reasons even the testers involved aren't always privy to.

To be fair, the OP didnt blame the playtestERS, he questioned (not blamed) playtestING. I.E: the process as such.

"Seriously, just don't".....or what? Sometimes inadequate (or non-existant) playtesting IS the culprit. Source: Star Trek Attack Wing.

PlaytestERs are pretty intrinsically linked to playtestING.

And Attack Wing is pretty much the living embodiment of the actual thing - the greedy company, the lazy design, the who cares attitude - that a lot of people around here make X-wing and FFG out to be.

It also wasn't a threat. There was no "or what."

I work at an engineering firm, and do a lot of work with the administrative staff. The thing the Admins absolutely hate is when an engineer does their own writing and edits and sends something out the door without going through them first - because the end result invariably is full of basic errors of spelling, grammar, and formatting issues.

And a lot of the time what happens is they do a bunch of work on it, and then ten minutes before it goes out the door the engineer is re-reading it, has second thoughts about something, and sits down and punches out some last second changes and runs out the door with it without leaving any time to be given a proper job of looking over by the admin.

So the thing they hate most of all is when someone comes complaining about something that is wrong with the report, and they take a look and discover "oh, they went and changed some things AFTER I saved it as Final and thought it was on its way out the door. Nice to know."

Draw your own inferences from that, or don't. But don't be so quick to blame the admins for things you don't like in the final product, is all I'm saying.

I dont get why some folks around here are defending TLTs so religiously. How do you have the authority to decide whether they're balanced or not? Why do posters who disagree with you don't seem to have that authority?

Alex Davy himself just said they are monitoring the situation, and, while he doesnt think they're too strong (or creaste as much of a NPE as Phantoms did), if TLTs turn out to be too powerfull there's ways they can adress the situation (see S&V podcast). Sounds like a fair assesment, no?

Why defend TLTs more than the designers themselves do... the people who, you know, designed them? Doesn't make much sense ot me.

Full disclaimer - my name is not in the K-wing insert, so I am definitely not speaking with any knowledge of what happened as far as the development of the TLT.
I was taking a break from most things X-wing for a while there, including testing stuff, to focus on some personal stuff I had going on.
So even if I could tell you how testing and everything went on the TLT, I couldn't tell you.

But I do think it's worth mentioning that even before taking into the account the development team having their own experiences, their own opinions, and the final SAY on everything, keep in mind they use testers from all over the country (if not the world), and opinions on anything they get their hands on in testing are invariably as divided as the community's opinions on everything upon release. One man's "Broken and OP" is another man's "Overcosted garbage."

I dont get why some folks around here are defending TLTs so religiously. How do you have the authority to decide whether they're balanced or not? Why do posters who disagree with you don't seem to have that authority?

Alex Davy himself just said they are monitoring the situation, and, while he doesnt think they're too strong (or creaste as much of a NPE as Phantoms did), if TLTs turn out to be too powerfull there's ways they can adress the situation (see S&V podcast). Sounds like a fair assesment, no?

Why defend TLTs more than the designers themselves do... the people who, you know, designed them? Doesn't make much sense ot me.

You could also ask why some people are attacking them, so fanatically, in spite of the fact the designers themselves, who, you know, designed them, don't think they're too overpowered - and are keeping an eye on them just in case they are - and will take action if they discover an issue.

Doesn't make much sense to me.

So to sum up and answer the question in the title:

Because in testing numerous ways of defeating this list were probably tried and tested, due to it being powerful but also burdened with a close range gap and low PS.

it's balanced

simplified

unless we're talking about "fun," in which case replace "it's balanced" with "it's subjective" or "it's not PWTs"

I don't think I've agreed with this many of your posts in my life, fickle.

I'm starting to get slightly worried!

There's a very good chance that if you are able to manipulate that distance carefully you can be just outside range 3 to several of them, as well.

This, absolutely this. It was mentioned a few times in the 20+ page "dealing with TLTs" thread that Vorpal Sword started, but it always bears repeating at times like this.

I've got a handful of games under my belt testing exactly this parry.

It is hard to pull off. You need to have a good visual grasp of the range bands, and preferably a ship that can barrel roll and to one banks/one forwards to adjust for error. I'm a decent pilot and I mucked it up a number of times. It's also a bit stressful: while I'm trying my hardest to control range range 3 band, the quad TLT is just blissfully doing 2 and 3 maneuver formation flying.

My hat's off to any pilot that can consistently do it!

I dont get why some folks around here are defending TLTs so religiously. How do you have the authority to decide whether they're balanced or not? Why do posters who disagree with you don't seem to have that authority?

Alex Davy himself just said they are monitoring the situation, and, while he doesnt think they're too strong (or creaste as much of a NPE as Phantoms did), if TLTs turn out to be too powerfull there's ways they can adress the situation (see S&V podcast). Sounds like a fair assesment, no?

Why defend TLTs more than the designers themselves do... the people who, you know, designed them? Doesn't make much sense ot me.

You could also ask why some people are attacking them, so fanatically, in spite of the fact the designers themselves, who, you know, designed them, don't think they're too overpowered - and are keeping an eye on them just in case they are - and will take action if they discover an issue.

Doesn't make much sense to me.

Yeah sure, its usually both sides.

In all fairness, the list I did it with took a couple of tries to get it right, and it was pretty much perfect for this tactic. I was using a dual Defender HLC list, which has a tiny footprint for trying to draw overlapping arcs on, and has a good fast moves to skirt around the side of the TLT formations and good slow moves with a 1-bank and Barrel Roll to stall and move laterally. Once I got a turn of shots on the outside, I could dive in for some shots with limited return fire at range 1.

yeah, defender+ICTx3 seems like a good counter!

I agree that TLT is the ultimate in Turretwing. I just view it as revenge for having to face 90% Fat Turretwing lists so I like that it's a massive NPE. It's also less of an NPE than facing Super Dash so even if quad TLT takes over the meta to the extent that the 2 ship lists did, we're still in an overall more enjoyable and various meta.

Also, if it wasn't powerful enough to do a decent enough against most things, it wouldn't have an effect on the meta and we'd still be stuck having table after table be Soontir/Deci vs. Dash/Corran. Quad TLT NEEDS to be OP to help the meta.

I think that the fact that TLT is never going to crit really hurts it.

haven't read all the posts in this thread, but ...

1) TLTx4 feels to me to be nerf-bat worthy. that's my intuition, and I'm curious to see if the empirical data confirms it. like the phantom before it, it makes it so that every list I'm building right now has to consider "how does this deal with TLTx4 spam?" yes, four auto-thrusting Interceptors will normally crush a TLTx4 list, just like a 97/98 point ChiraFel list crushed the old Phantom meta. when I build lists for tournament play, I'm designing for coverage over significant percentage of the Rock-Paper-Scissors meta, and TLTx4 mucks that up for me.

2) assuming the data plays out in concordance with my intuition, my current thoughts on a"nerf" is to put the "Twin" into TLT: max of two TLTs per list!

I think if the Y player sees a bunch of boosters across the table they'd just choose the maneuvers that move them the most to make it more difficult for interceptors to stay in the blind spots. The interceptors still have the odds, but the Ys will still have lots of shots and could wear them down eventually.

Idk i have not yet seen anything that would justify to fly TLT counter lists exclusively. I think that its a very strong list but at the moment its strength is also getting largely exaggerated.

In fact i dont think i have ever seen this forum show such a panic reaction that quickly after a release. Even the Phantom did not immediately provoke that. In fact i believe there was a majority of people that didn't see the Phantom as overpowered for the first few months. It was only when it became clear that it had changed the whole meta to Phantom lists and its counters that people started realizing that it was a problem.

But this time with TLT we hardly have any experience with or against it and there is a huge reaction already. I don't know if its just a few people that are really making a lot of noise or if the frustration with TLT is that big for a large part of the forum community.

Now as stated i really see no big problem with it, or at least not yet! But i wouldn't even mind if they limited it to one or two copies per list if people really saw the need for this. I would just say that then Fat 2 ship lists will immediately be back on top of the meta. Which one might like or not!

But now at least we will see some 3 or 4 ship builds that are diverse and interesting, because some of those can actually counter TLTs. I kinda like that! No extreme PS bids, or hypermobility (as TLT can kill that quite well). Instead some durable semi-mobile ships with decent firepower and numbers... To me this seems like we are on a good way to a more diverse meta!!

It is early, that is true. But they've amassed a pretty notorious reputation in just a matter of weeks and it seems like it's more than just a few drops in the bucket voicing their concerns about it. Now could the whole thing still be a knee-jerk reaction? Possibly. Or maybe there is a good reason for the outcry. Time will tell I guess.

This isn't coming from someone who is irked they got spanked by them or can't find a way to deal with them and is now running in panic mode. It's coming from someone who has seen them in action on both sides of the table and found them to be incredibly dull and cheesy (and yes, more autopilot than anything we've seen to date). That's just my own personal opinion. They feel a bit like a cop out actually, whether or not that was the intent.

I don't think they need a nerf, instead I would be open to limiting how many you can have in a list. I think a max of 2 would be fine.

If they HAD to have a nerf, I think what I'd like is only allowing you to modify ONE of your two attacks. That would help against the ships that can modify both, like recon spec hwks or r4 agromech scum y-wings, etc. Those are the truly dangerous TLT ships.

Normal ones get their fair share of misses, especially if you're running ships that mostly have at least 2 agility.

I don't think they need a nerf, instead I would be open to limiting how many you can have in a list. I think a max of 2 would be fine.

If they HAD to have a nerf, I think what I'd like is only allowing you to modify ONE of your two attacks. That would help against the ships that can modify both, like recon spec hwks or r4 agromech scum y-wings, etc. Those are the truly dangerous TLT ships.

Normal ones get their fair share of misses, especially if you're running ships that mostly have at least 2 agility.

Yet, those squads are not the ones that are in question here. HWK builds are going to be inherently more fragile than the Thug/Gold. Not to mention, a much worse dial. And last I checked, the Argomech cannot be used in a 4 TLT build. So, you will generally have half of your attacks unmodified. Which, isn't nearly as scary as you may think once you have some experience.

A lot of the old squads have to be rethought, sure. I fail to see why this is necessarily a bad thing. And while the 4 TLT builds have had some success, it doesn't look like they were dominating. Which is only a good thing.

Alex Davy himself just said they are monitoring the situation, and, while he doesnt think they're too strong (or creaste as much of a NPE as Phantoms did), if TLTs turn out to be too powerfull there's ways they can adress the situation (see S&V podcast). Sounds like a fair assesment, no?

Which is exactly what they said about Fortress builds for instance.

Alex Davy himself just said they are monitoring the situation, and, while he doesnt think they're too strong (or creaste as much of a NPE as Phantoms did), if TLTs turn out to be too powerfull there's ways they can adress the situation (see S&V podcast). Sounds like a fair assesment, no?

Which is exactly what they said about Fortress builds for instance.

The difference being TLT spam has won two nationals while fortress builds haven't.