I think TLT would be better if you did full damage, but only get 2nd shot if the first shot hits.

Would probably mean that it would be unbalanced regarding its intended target, but I'd prefer it to the continuous plinking.

I have put no thought into this.

5 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I think Quad TLT triggers people because it feels like 'anti-X-Wing'.

It's something I've said somewhere else before, but a squad that is really oppressive unless you're very good is actually pretty poor game design, because the MAJORITY of players have a very bad experience against it. X-Wing tournaments aren't an exercise in imperically working out who the best players are and ranking them, they're an exercise in creating an enjoyable environment that makes players want to continue playing and buying X-Wing.

I wouldn't call it anti X-wing. It is the Meta that is anti X-wing. TLTs is more like Anti-Soontir, and we have been through this since Fat Han.

I think the point he's going for is that quad TLT when played mediocrely is the epitome of bringing a list that just avoids playing the game altogether and instead relies on rolling better dice than the other guy.

Limit it to two per list. Simples.

Come off it, .TLT is not overpowered, certainly not compared with ships like the effing Jumpmaster 5000. Having three or four TLTs in a list are what kills flying small ships at the mo.

48 minutes ago, Anferno said:

What if the disdain & subsequent alienation/outcasting of TLT players (especially quad TLTs) is strongly encouraged and becomes the norm in every X-Wing community around the world?

Would that socially force TLT players to reconsider their list?

It would create a counter-movement equally polarizing. You don't change people by calling them names. They will find their safe-space and claim your moral-highground to be hypocritical (rightfully).

Turrets had always been something i despise in this game to be honest, but for some reason you will find people defending them as some sort of neccessary evil. Change the tone of your critics, and they will change theirs aswell.

10 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

I wouldn't call it anti X-wing. It is the Meta that is anti X-wing. TLTs is more like Anti-Soontir, and we have been through this since Fat Han.

If i am not mistaken, he is not specifically talking about the ship, but the game.

Just now, DreadStar said:

If i am not mistaken, he is not specifically talking about the ship, but the game.

As I said, we've been through this since Fat Han.

20 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:

I think Quad TLT triggers people because it feels like 'anti-X-Wing'.

It's something I've said somewhere else before, but a squad that is really oppressive unless you're very good is actually pretty poor game design, because the MAJORITY of players have a very bad experience against it. X-Wing tournaments aren't an exercise in imperically working out who the best players are and ranking them, they're an exercise in creating an enjoyable environment that makes players want to continue playing and buying X-Wing.

That's a very good point. While some, like me, enjoy an occasional game vs 4 tlt because it's one of the matchup where manoeuvring matters a lot, I can totally see newer and less experienced players having their day ruined by 4 tlts rolling waves of dice.

Limiting them to 2 per list sound a good way to counter it while still keeping TLT in the game.

Ghost with finn and turret is going to be the next thing thought. I can't really see many people enjoying eating a 5-6 dice heavy modified attack followed by a turret shot

Edit: and fortressing too. I think that's way up on the list of things that doesn't help creating an enjoyable environment

2 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

As I said, we've been through this since Fat Han.

Turrets being anti-Xwing has always been up to debate. Anytime a turret manages to crawl it up to the top (which is pretty much always), you will have this discussion. It's not surprising at all, and i don't think it has ever been a debate the community has been through, but that it will be completely prevalent (and relevant) as long Xwing is alive as a game.

2 minutes ago, DreadStar said:

Turrets being anti-Xwing has always been up to debate. Anytime a turret manages to crawl it up to the top (which is pretty much always), you will have this discussion. It's not surprising at all.

They were not on top when they first came out. When they did it was a alpha strike list that took them out of top. Now a list like that would be something arc dodgers should have been able to avoid but instead, a lot of forum complaining, so they got nerfed and now turrets remain.

So you all got the X-wing you asked for. Deal with it!

2 minutes ago, DreadStar said:

Turrets being anti-Xwing has always been up to debate. Anytime a turret manages to crawl it up to the top (which is pretty much always), you will have this discussion. It's not surprising at all.

And there's a reason thought. Han solo and RAC are probably the 2 dumbest pilot ever made.

Actionless dice modifiers, defense non reliant on variancy, high ps and repositioning tools with a PWT.

It's not coincidence that there hasn't been anything like that after them

22 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

I wouldn't call it anti X-wing. It is the Meta that is anti X-wing. TLTs is more like Anti-Soontir, and we have been through this since Fat Han.

but ships with 2 agility dice do infact melt against TLT, and the X-wing have...

And no repositioning to try and compete with a Y-Wing that could have dialed a couple of different things and you need to get close to it, but it's just as fast as you are.

Just now, Sciencius said:

but 2 agility dice do infact melt against TLT, and the X-wing have...

regenerating shields. But yeah I can see 4 TLT-wings can overwhelm a shield recovery biggs. But then that is biggs who is stopping all the other ships from getting shot at.

Anyways you want turrets gone. Bring back alpha strike and don't cry when it blows up a little TIE Interceptor because it landed in arc and ate so many torpedoes that palp couldn't save it.

Well yeah, and ordnance is too good as well. That they got the mechanics of what ordnance should do wrong from the outset is still rippling through the game years later.

Ordnance should be your answer to large ships but of relatively little value against small ships. If anything it's the opposite because a small ship can get wiped off the board in one shot but a large ship can take the hit and keep trucking.

Imperial Assault combat (if I remember it right) has two steps: 1) did I hit? 2) how much damage did I do? An approach like that would be very good for Ordnance, relatively unlikely to hit a small ship but dealing a lot of damage to anything they do hit. X-Wing has conflated those two steps into one value, though.

Ordnance should have been two different things - missiles (and other things that are intended to be high accuracy but low damage such as TLTs) which do big amounts of dice but those dice do little damage, and torpedoes (and other such low accuracy high damage things like maybe HLC) which do small amounts of dice but those dice do big damage.

Relying on just one sort of attack die is one of the biggest issues with early x-wing design IMO. It really shows that basically every similar game FFG have released since has had multiple different types of attack dice.

And this is both from a fluff perspective AND from a game balance perspective. As it is, missiles and torpedoes are basically the same thing in different slots which is lame.

29 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

They were not on top when they first came out. When they did it was a alpha strike list that took them out of top. Now a list like that would be something arc dodgers should have been able to avoid but instead, a lot of forum complaining, so they got nerfed and now turrets remain.

So you all got the X-wing you asked for. Deal with it!

Okey, i guess i will need to further develop the point i am trying to convey.

When the game started (i would say wave 1-3), there were 3 ship archtypes so to speak. Arc-dodger, Turrets, Swarmy. It's important to note that turrets were made to deal with arc-dodgers, swarms against turrets, and arc-dodgers against swarms. Obviously this wasn't as true as it is on RPS. The game wasn't really figured out back then, and jousting swarms were for the most part, the most effective way to win a tournament.

FFG attempted to change this with the Phantom. The phantom became the ultimate arc-dodger, and a decently flied one could decimate swarms with little to no problems (and it was easier to play than an interceptor). This forced people to learn to deal it with swarms (do-able, but unreliable for the most part), switch over to the phantom, or play turrets. Once people start playing turrets, one of them starts to gain traction, and Han appears to be an answer to the new crazy overpowered Phantom. As a turret, you don't have the maneuvering problems a swarm list have against arc-dodgers. It is a fact that it is much simpler to play, something that's also good at long tournaments. But it doesn't stop there, once people figure out more Fat Han loadouts and plays, they realize that it is also actually good against swarms. Start to see less and less play since the archtype they are suppossed to have an advantadge on, they no longer do, and the one which was their weakness, was a complete beast at the time and very relevant.

Then wave 5 arrives, and guess what, it brings more flavour of turrets. Swarms get totally displaced out of the meta, except rebel outliers which can barely be called a swarm, but it also makes any arc-dodger which is not Soontir or Whisper to feel completely useless for the most part, there are outliers as always, but this was the norm. Obviously FFG realizes about this and prepares a counter on wave 6 to make more arc-dodgers relevant (autothrusters), so they buff the archtype turrets are suppossed to deal with to be up on par, and displace the archtype which is suppossed to give turrets a run for their money even further down the drain, the swarms.

And from there on, you can tell me when a turret ship has not been relevant at all. When i say a turret has been relevant always for the most part, i mean as, once the game got a bit figured out. And that's fine if you enjoy turrets, but i do think the case can be made against them with how the game currently works.

5 hours ago, Verlaine said:

And here you go making the same flawed argument again.

And here you go zeroing in on one small part of my post again, using it to discredit the far more important points. I already regret mentioning the boredom element, so how about we forget that non-integral part and instead you try and address my actual argument - which is to say that the TLT has key weaknesses that keep it in check and prevent it from 'destroying the game' as the OP claims.

Of an even greater concern is the fact that TLT's being 'broken' seems to already be gaining acceptance as truth rather than a flawed opinion. Where is the evidence that supports the claim, other than repetition of how 'unfun' it is and the assumption that it's self-evident? Where are the hordes of potential new players that have been turned away because of TLT's? What are the TLT lists that allegedly dominate the game?

There is zero actual correlation between the current health of the game and the TLT. I am yet to see anything that runs counter to this outside of unsubstantiated opinions. It is the exact same as the claims that the game is dying because it is no longer recogniseable as Star Wars - nonsense based on personal opinon and prejudice.

That moment you realize, those on the forums calling for nerfs... are Ewoks!

2 hours ago, MalusCalibur said:

And here you go zeroing in on one small part of my post again, using it to discredit the far more important points. I already regret mentioning the boredom element, so how about we forget that non-integral part and instead you try and address my actual argument - which is to say that the TLT has key weaknesses that keep it in check and prevent it from 'destroying the game' as the OP claims.

Of an even greater concern is the fact that TLT's being 'broken' seems to already be gaining acceptance as truth rather than a flawed opinion. Where is the evidence that supports the claim, other than repetition of how 'unfun' it is and the assumption that it's self-evident? Where are the hordes of potential new players that have been turned away because of TLT's? What are the TLT lists that allegedly dominate the game?

There is zero actual correlation between the current health of the game and the TLT. I am yet to see anything that runs counter to this outside of unsubstantiated opinions. It is the exact same as the claims that the game is dying because it is no longer recogniseable as Star Wars - nonsense based on personal opinon and prejudice.

My opponents are always like, "you have a TLT in your list? uh uh" and then beat me anyway. It just has a bad rap. Next time, Gunner + FCS and see how people dig that.

On 3/29/2017 at 6:56 PM, thespaceinvader said:

See also my post where I repeatedly note that it's not just about what's over/underpowered, it's also about what's enjoyable to play and play against.

(Also, Mindlink is arguably dominant not because it in itself is super amazing, but because Scum have underpriced EPT ships with overly good dials to go with it).

I love a challenge. What's enjoyable is quite arbitrary.

RoV

We have this topic once every two weeks and the point is lost on alot of players.

It's not that quad TLT can be countered (anything can be countered). It's the thing that TLT is too powerful when compared to other turrets. It's not an external balance problem it's and internal. TLT is pushing all other turrets since they aren't as effective with maybe the exception on autoblaster on a large base thanks to the bigger ring and the cheaper price.

Then it's the fact that TLT doesn't do much vs 3 agilit with auto and stacks and 1 or less agility ships get's hammered by whatever is shooting at them. 2 agility small ships suffer however since their hull/shield values are balanced for 2 agility but double 3 red dice shots that ignores range 3 bonus.

1 hour ago, jocke01 said:

We have this topic once every two weeks and the point is lost on alot of players.

It's not that quad TLT can be countered (anything can be countered). It's the thing that TLT is too powerful when compared to other turrets. It's not an external balance problem it's and internal. TLT is pushing all other turrets since they aren't as effective with maybe the exception on autoblaster on a large base thanks to the bigger ring and the cheaper price.

Then it's the fact that TLT doesn't do much vs 3 agilit with auto and stacks and 1 or less agility ships get's hammered by whatever is shooting at them. 2 agility small ships suffer however since their hull/shield values are balanced for 2 agility but double 3 red dice shots that ignores range 3 bonus.

It's more that the other turrets are garbage than anything else. The TLT is good value, but all the other turrets, even the synced turret is not. The range 1-2 restriction on most of them really hurts them as a primary means of attack and the ships they're on don't work otherwise.

Just be glad it's not armada. Ben killed that game completely like months ago...

1 hour ago, FatherTurin said:

Just be glad it's not armada. Ben killed that game completely like months ago...

How so ? Just curious as I don't play armada.