When I first read Synced Turret I missed the Attack:Target lock requirement and I thought it would be a decent TLT alternative. With the target lock requirement I see very few cases where it wouldn't be better to just buy TLT instead. However all this got me thinking about what can be done with TLT to make room for other turret upgrades and it hit me that the Attack:Target lock header would be a perfect errata for TLT. FFG seems to care about upgrades that push ships out of the meta and TLT certainly qualifies. So what does everyone think about this? I know calling for more errata after the recent FAQ seems off but TLT is one of the few cards that push whole categories of ships out because they can't stand up to the consistent damage output.

Compared to the other turret options, TLT is so far ahead when it comes to everything: consistency, value, range.

Ion is OK, but for only 1 more point you get TLT with a larger area to attack. (range 3 covers 5 times the area of range 1). You get some control, but with only 3 attack die, it isn't consistent in today's game. If the ion was automatically assigned, it would be amazing.

Blaster Turret is just horrible, if it weren't for the Crow to bank a bunch of tokens and use ReconSpec, it would have never been viable. The need to lend the token ruins it. At 4 points, only out to range 2, needing to spend that focus ruins it. Synched Turret has this completely beat in efficiency, but I'm not a fan of the TL requirement.

Dorsal Turret isn't bad at all, 3 points to shoot 2-3 die out if arc is fine if you are low on points and have an empty turret, but you won't build a list around it like you do TLTs.

Autoblaster has its place.

TLTs are probably under costed, but requiring a TL will completely wipe it out for low PS offerings. I think raising its price by 1 will help the others. It will also make the quad TLT lists more controlable with stress. If you want other turrets to see action, I think they need a price reduction of 1 for all but Autoblaster and remove the spending focus for BT.

I think the TLT is good, but the other turrets are just not good enough to be the primary means of attack and most ships that currently have turret slots don't really have any reason to use it unless it's the primary means of attack. The exception is the ghost which has a powerful primary attack, making the turret a sensible secondary weapon.

I think the TL is the perfect application to a turret weapon. The Target lock action is the most restrictive in it has to apply to a matched pair (your blue and the opponents red). If you want to change targets during the combat phase you will have to have some way of getting a free target lock action before you attack or wait until the next turn. Furthermore the TL telegraphs your attack so a lower pilot skill pilot would give ample warning to a higher pilot skill pilot thus allowing it to get in or out of range or even bump if necessary. The fact that you do not have to discard your target lock token to make an attack is one of the key features that almost all other torpedo and missile weapons face that makes them so impotent in the game. Also against lower pilot skills the action can be blocked.

As for more out of arc attacks this weapon does keep the firing arc in mind by encouraging the player to make attacks in arc giving them the ability to modify their attack without spending the TL token. Thus you get a permanent TL while you keep the defender in arc. However if defender is out of arc and there was a bad roll, spending the lock won't hurt too much.

Now the big question is will this be better than the current king the TLT. Well it already replaced blaster turret. This is straight up power creep as it has the same firepower, same range, same point cost, similar effect, the only difference is instead of focus it is TL and you don't have to spend your focus (but then again focus would have been discarded at the end unless Moldy Crow title). Well the Blaster turret is beyond salvage, maybe the Hawks would appreciate this.

It's a little better than a Blaster Turret but not much. It does have more potential because with the right squad and upgrades it might be okay.

If it didn't have the Target Lock requirement it might be able to compete with TLT.

If they gave Blaster Turret an errata so that it didn't require the spending of the focus token, I think it might be about on par with this new turret.

I would choose ST over TLT in exactly one situation. BL Y wings.

1 hour ago, Mrk1984 said:

Compared to the other turret options, TLT is so far ahead when it comes to everything: consistency, value, range.

Ion is OK, but for only 1 more point you get TLT with a larger area to attack. (range 3 covers 5 times the area of range 1). You get some control, but with only 3 attack die, it isn't consistent in today's game. If the ion was automatically assigned, it would be amazing.

Blaster Turret is just horrible, if it weren't for the Crow to bank a bunch of tokens and use ReconSpec, it would have never been viable. The need to lend the token ruins it. At 4 points, only out to range 2, needing to spend that focus ruins it. Synched Turret has this completely beat in efficiency, but I'm not a fan of the TL requirement.

Dorsal Turret isn't bad at all, 3 points to shoot 2-3 die out if arc is fine if you are low on points and have an empty turret, but you won't build a list around it like you do TLTs.

Autoblaster has its place.

TLTs are probably under costed, but requiring a TL will completely wipe it out for low PS offerings. I think raising its price by 1 will help the others. It will also make the quad TLT lists more controlable with stress. If you want other turrets to see action, I think they need a price reduction of 1 for all but Autoblaster and remove the spending focus for BT.

We all know that price changes are probably not going to happen. What change other than that could bring TLT down to the other turrets? I think the TL requirement would be good. Yes generic TLT spam would be dead but is that really a bad thing?

25 minutes ago, rafcpl6868 said:

I would choose ST over TLT in exactly one situation. BL Y wings.

I can think of a couple of others.

You are taking a TIE Assessor with TL requiring ordnance and are taking Deadeye.
You've got a ship or two in your squad with Targetting Synchronizer (or Shara Bey).

If points weren't an issue TLT might be a better choice in those cases but 3 points is a nice chunk to save.

A slight variation on the Attack (Target Lock) for TLT suggestion - what if instead it was:

" Attack: Attack 1 ship (even a ship outside your firing arc). If you have a Target Lock on the Defender, perform this attack twice .

(rest of text as is)

...

Might be too much text for the card space?

3 hours ago, ABXY said:

A slight variation on the Attack (Target Lock) for TLT suggestion - what if instead it was:

" Attack: Attack 1 ship (even a ship outside your firing arc). If you have a Target Lock on the Defender, perform this attack twice .

(rest of text as is)

...

Might be too much text for the card space?

That would be SUCH a nice fix for the TLT. It would probably be pretty well balanced too.

I'd actually phrase it a little differently though: after attacking, if you have a target lock on the defender, repeat this attack. You may not attack again this phase (or round, which would kill the Ghost quad TLT which would be no bad thing IMO). That allows for a little more in the way of interesting space where you can pick up a TL mid-shot e.g. FCS, R4 Agromech or Drea Renthal.

9 hours ago, Mrk1984 said:

(range 3 covers 5 times the area of range 1)

I'm no geometrician, but that doesn't sound right.

11 minutes ago, ObiWonka said:

I'm no geometrician, but that doesn't sound right.

The number is a bit off due to the size of a ship's base (And the bases square shape), but it'd do for a rough estimate.

Approximate area for each range,(not including the base, so actual is a bit larger for each)

Range 1: 3.14 x 10^2 = 314 cm^2

Range 2 only: 3.14 × (20^2 - 10^2) = 942 cm^2

Range 3 only: 3.14 × (30^2 - 20^2) = 1570cm^2

This is why a range 2-3 turret is so much better than a range 1-2.

There is potentially some squad synergy with abilities that let you use someone else's target lock ala Shara Bey or something. Might make BTL-A4 or something worthwhile... maybe...

Doing BTL with this makes for a much worse use of BTL than TLT though. You gain range 1 but lose range 3 (which is the range where using a turret is better than a primary in most cases) and gain some rerolls but lose a whole attack.

I genuinely can't see myself ever using this over TLTs unless TLTs get significantly worse and/or more expensive. And this is a really good upgrade.

A4 Y wings are about the ONLY place I can see this getting decent use, especially with R4 Agromech. TLT is a better choice in basically every other situation.

11 hours ago, rafcpl6868 said:

I would choose ST over TLT in exactly one situation. BL Y wings.

I'm actually going to be experimenting with this combo in our current Heroes of the Aturi Cluster campaign. My ship/pilot is already always taking target locks for my ordnance, having the option to switch to guns because someone else damaged it or because it got into range 1 on its move is a neat concept. The rerolls help just like GC helps my ordnance.

8 minutes ago, Engine25 said:

A4 Y wings are about the ONLY place I can see this getting decent use, especially with R4 Agromech. TLT is a better choice in basically every other situation.

I'm not seeing it.

If you're spending 6 points on ST and R4 Agro, then... why not spend 6 points on TLT? You'll do more damage.

You can also use the Deadeye EPT to get around the Target Lock requirement so that's not bad. However, if you do that, you don't get to bypass Biggs' ability anymore.

Haven't seen it mentioned before, but did you guys consider the effect that Targeting Synchronizer has on this Turret?

Friendly ships ignore the TL requirement for firing, but still get to keep free re-rolls when attacking in arc with the Synced Turret.

Epsilon Ace with TS is just 20 points, just saying.

2 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Doing BTL with this makes for a much worse use of BTL than TLT though. You gain range 1 but lose range 3 (which is the range where using a turret is better than a primary in most cases) and gain some rerolls but lose a whole attack.

I genuinely can't see myself ever using this over TLTs unless TLTs get significantly worse and/or more expensive. And this is a really good upgrade.

In a meta full of beefy, low agility ships I think that the ability to throw two modified 3 dice attacks that are actually landing damage for each canceled result and be able to deal crits is probably worth about as much as TLT.

8 hours ago, ABXY said:

A slight variation on the Attack (Target Lock) for TLT suggestion - what if instead it was:

" Attack: Attack 1 ship (even a ship outside your firing arc). If you have a Target Lock on the Defender, perform this attack twice .

(rest of text as is)

...

Might be too much text for the card space?

Now this is a fantastic idea! Cuts down on the effectiveness without making it completely useless for low PS ships. Make this happen FFG!

31 minutes ago, Mef82 said:

Haven't seen it mentioned before, but did you guys consider the effect that Targeting Synchronizer has on this Turret?

Friendly ships ignore the TL requirement for firing, but still get to keep free re-rolls when attacking in arc with the Synced Turret.

Epsilon Ace with TS is just 20 points, just saying.

This is what I was saying - they allow for some more squad synergy.

Here's a thought... Though I'm not of the opinion that TLT is broken, but rather that there is no viable alternative...

TLT - 6 Points - Leave as is

ICT - 5 Points - Make it roll 4 Dice, Everything else is the same. The ICT then would be better at hitting those high agility targets, and the ion would be that much more devastating when it did. The problem with it as is is that anything you want to ionize, 3 attack dice can barely hit.

BT - 4 Points - Change "Attack: Focus, Spend Focus" to just "Attack: Focus." It makes it easier to use than the ST (because F is easier to obtain than TL), but does not have any modifier benefit

ST - 4 Points - Leave as is. It's very similiar to the BT, but by requiring the TL, it's more difficult to setup than BT, but more consistent once it is setup, and has the reroll capability

DT - 3 Points - I don't know a single time I would take DT... 2 dice attacks just aren't worth anything these days, and if I'm taking a R1 attack, I'd rather it be 2 dice from the ABT than 3 from the DT. And I don't know what design space is left open at this point. Perhaps an OL type ability - defenders cannot modify their dice? But then would it be OP for 3 points?

ABT - 2 Points - Leave as is. It's a very situational turret, that really should never be used - anyone you want to use it on isn't going to stay in R1 so you can use it. But it is a R1 deterrent. And I suppose it will be used if you build the squad around it (5 Ys w/ ABT, or the 2 Ghosts + Y w/ ABT).

So basically, increase the dice rolled on ICT to make it more reliable, and remove the focus spend from the BT... And redesign the DT to be useful