Tail gunner...You're a tail gunner.
Sorry, I can't help it. All I hear is Iron Maiden.
Tail Gunner
Tail gunner...You're a tail gunner.
Sorry, I can't help it. All I hear is Iron Maiden.
Clip shows good examples of why a turret does not equal 100% coverage. And that even with 6 guns there are still blind spots to exploit and that running abeam turns your accuracy to rubbish. All things this game could be better with if the rules factored them in.
Edited by Kael HateIt seems steep at 2 points for cost. Still I'm a fan of Kath in the Firespray, so I'll try it a few times.
It seems steep at 2 points for cost. Still I'm a fan of Kath in the Firespray, so I'll try it a few times.
Its cheaper then Outmaneuver for an easier to use version of the game effect. Kath will love it.
Tail Gunner or Outmanoeuvred, why not both?
that's a lot of points and a lot of outmaneuvering you gotta do from only 1 arc
that's a lot of points and a lot of outmaneuvering you gotta do from only 1 arc
Engine Upgrade! .... It solves every large-based ship's problems.
I've seen the Outmaneuver suggestion elsewhere also. Important to note that it also works from the front arc, for if and when you cannot line up a back arc shot. It's situationality hasn't changed, though. And none of the ships that can benefit from Tail Gunner are particularly maneuverable.
well tail gunner doesn't have to outmanuever, just needs a target in arc
don't know about the spray, it has at least a little promise with Thane and Norra, if you're not building her for regeneration
My Empire Kath with Tactician and Respec, just got a whole lot better with Tail Gunner and is now 1 pt cheaper.
My Empire Kath with Tactician and Respec, just got a whole lot better with Tail Gunner and is now 1 pt cheaper.
Tactician and RecSpec?
My Empire Kath with Tactician and Respec, just got a whole lot better with Tail Gunner and is now 1 pt cheaper.
That's a lot of people in a Firespray
Obviously, another succesful marketing campaign by Mr. Fett
Obviously, another succesful marketing campaign by Mr. Fett
"Take up less space when you disintegrate them....."
My Empire Kath with Tactician and Respec, just got a whole lot better with Tail Gunner and is now 1 pt cheaper.
Interesting, how are you doing this?
My Empire Kath with Tactician and Respec, just got a whole lot better with Tail Gunner and is now 1 pt cheaper.
The FS-31 only has one crew slot.
I've seen the Outmaneuver suggestion elsewhere also. Important to note that it also works from the front arc, for if and when you cannot line up a back arc shot. It's situationality hasn't changed, though. And none of the ships that can benefit from Tail Gunner are particularly maneuverable.
Outmaneuver seems like a bad combo with Tail Gunner. I feel the same way about taking it on Wedge. Against Decimators and VCX-100s you've wasted both your crew and EPT slots. Against anything with 1 Agility you've wasted one of the two upgrades.
You'd probably be better off with Crackshot than Outmaneuver if you just want to punch through defenses. You save a couple of points, you can always make it trigger, it works against green dice from range or obstacles, and it works against evade tokens. Getting rid of an agility die is only getting rid of 3/8ths of an evade (5/8ths if they have a focus) while Crackshot gets rid of an evade every time. The ships you really benefit most from having Tail Gunner + Outmaneuver are also the same ones you'll have trouble trigger Outmaneuver on.
That or use your EPT to diversify instead of going all in on penetration.
Seems like loads of people are trying to put 2 crew in a Firespray. I assume it's trolling. Someone on another thread was saying that Tail Gunner and K4-Security combo is broken on Firespray....
Looking at the art, I foresee Tail Gunner with as a future alt art card with something more Imperial themed given the Tie/SF.
Looking at the art, I foresee Tail Gunner with as a future alt art card with something more Imperial themed given the Tie/SF.
The TIE/sf doesnt have crew slot. Maybe something more Firespray-ry...
Looking at the art, I foresee Tail Gunner with as a future alt art card with something more Imperial themed given the Tie/SF.
The TIE/sf doesnt have crew slot. Maybe something more Firespray-ry...
That would make the first scum alt art, right? I'd love that!
Clip shows good examples of why a turret does not equal 100% coverage. And that even with 6 guns there are still blind spots to exploit and that running abeam turns your accuracy to rubbish. All things this game could be better with if the rules factored them in.
In "real life" turrets are very hard (I mean, almost impossible) to aim if the vehicle is turning. Turrets in this game would be very different if this was considered in the rules.
Clip shows good examples of why a turret does not equal 100% coverage. And that even with 6 guns there are still blind spots to exploit and that running abeam turns your accuracy to rubbish. All things this game could be better with if the rules factored them in.
In "real life" turrets are very hard (I mean, almost impossible) to aim if the vehicle is turning. Turrets in this game would be very different if this was considered in the rules.
Simplicity is far more important than real world accuracy, even when you consider balancing the game. We do have something in this vein of turret blind spots, in the way that the firing arcs work on Huge Ships. Various angle measurements and fields of coverage.
It would also make perfect sense, from a physics Point of View, for more maneuverable/agile craft to have wider angle firing arcs, if you consider what the firing arc actually represents. The guns on a ship are locked forward. They don't turn independently of the craft on the vast majority of ships. Firing arcs represent the ship's ability to yaw left/right or pitch up/down to align a target and then return to its previous heading. Therefore, ships that can turn easier or are more agile could have wider firing arcs and more sluggish ships could have slimmer firing arcs, if this was considered in the rules. Thankfully, it is not. The firing arcs are all about 80 degrees, and it is the same angle on every ship for simplicity and for balance.
Turrets should also reflect this. All turrets should have the same field of fire, as far as angle is concerned. Makes sense that some turret weapons can't reliably hit long range targets (like the Ion or Autoblaster Turret), and some move too slowly to target closer targets because the targets are moving too fast (Twin Laser Turret). Perhaps Turret Primaries should function similarly, or perhaps they shouldn't allow range bonuses out of arc, or perhaps they should introduce some other limiting factor, or perhaps no change is necessary. That's not for me or for us to decide, really, but I do firmly believe that the 100% coverage is the best way to balance the turrets. If a change is to be made (not advocating that it should, to be clear), then that should not change. The moment you eliminate reliable turrets from the game is the moment that ace lists become the only winning lists in the game, and that would be a bigger problem. Some people like ace lists, some people like swarms, some people like turrets. They all have to stay. Turrets with 100% angle of fire must exist in the game in its current form, or you eliminate a large number of ships from playability. Even more so than the ships that are outside the meta during any given period of time. Physics rarely apply in Star Wars dogfighting anyway. Even less so in the game due to physical restraints of the components and for gameplay balancing reasons. It has to be this way.
Edited by Engine25