So what you guys would think if FFG would come with an idea of changing all the PWT's and Secondary Weapon Turrets to Mobile Arc turrets, so they would be using the same rules?

That change would make all of them to use one action to change the side of the arc, but it would also make turrets to skip Autothrusters mostly, only the range 3 would be applicable. Would this have positive effect on TLT and other turrets from defenders perspective?

I would be okay with this, it would make turrets bit more "difficult" to play and that would also make more difficult to get action done, unless you predict your opponents movements. Of course it would make Blaster Turret even worse, but it needs a bump anyway so I wouldn't worry too much. I'm just speculating this, I don't want that people get stuck with the problem how FFG would provide those mobile arc tokens or the firing arc, but I would image that it would be different token than Shadow Casters token, maybe it do be token that would be bigger and would offer mobile arc on the same token that you would point where is your turret pointing at.

So pros and cons? Ideas? And so on..

Unless they were planning a 2.0 I doubt they would, this is a LOT of cardboard changing, and would affect points values a lo too.

I'd love to see it happen but I don;t think it's practical to do unless the whole game is getting a major overhaul.

The biggest problem with this is the lack of 4 sections on the bases. The Shadowcaster has the 4 different areas, where most ships will only have in or out of arc.

The other issue will come in terms of cost. Most PWT ships have a built in cost increase. It will also make all turrets unplayable except possibly TLT, where now TLT reigns supreme, but others are occasionally seen.

Other than the bases needing the lines, the only way this would work is if there was a free action at the start of the combat phase to move the mobile arc with the cost of a stress, and then change Autothrusters to outside primary arc.

This would be so simple. A 90 degree arc of clear plastic with a small circle at the vertex so it could slide down and fit on the base. Sell them in small ship 4 packs and 2 for large.

Give them slightly different rules than mobile arcs:

set at the end of the combat phase

can use action to move to neighboring arc

still to be considered firing out of arc

It's a common opinion that the mobile arc is 'what PWT's should have been all along'. Regardless of whether you agree or not (I don't), it is not practical or feasible to change it now, and every player would resent having to buy additional components to even legally (in game terms) use ships they already own.
Not to mention, also, that many cards since the first PWT have been made with them in mind (case in point: Autothrusters), increasingly so as more have been released, and so to throw that spanner into the works by completely changing the mechanic could have unforeseen and potentially disastrous consequences.

So, in short, no. It's far too late to do something like that now, and trying to sell something on the back of it would be guaranteed to annoy and alienate players.

They should have just made turrets have some kind of drawback for firing out of arc, like the defender gets to reroll one die or something.

Cause I played as a Y Wing gunner in battlefront 2! It was nearly impossible to hit anybody while your buddy was flying!

and then he said

we should turn all turrets into mobile firing arcs

17 hours ago, Lobokai said:

This would be so simple.

It may work if you made them optional and gave them some sort of benefit for using mobile firing arcs, but that's the only way, if it were optional. Which would make it something other than simple.

What you can't do is require that people buy something new so they can use ship they already own.

Would it be a good idea to introduce an upgrade card that changes a PWT to a mobile arc for a point reduction? Lobokai's idea would work for this. Make it a double sided card, one large base, one small base with different points reductions, and on the large base it removes all torpedo and missiles slots from the upgrade bar (can't have cheaper torpboats). I would also add a condition for a free action to rotate the arc (on straights or speed 3 or 4)

1 hour ago, Mrk1984 said:

and on the large base it removes all torpedo and missiles slots from the upgrade bar

Would have to be a fairly sizeable reduction in points to make getting rid of those slots worth it. Not that there's a ton of torps or missiles on most large ships, but you are giving up a slot, and making your ship less effective.

Even if you want to fix PWTs, I'd rather not lose them all together, it's pretty thematic (the falcon clearly has a turret not just a mobile arc).

I prefer FFG's current method which is giving benefits to being in arc, and more mobile arcs is good too.

It would be simpler to just say that all attacks vs targets out of arc give the defender +1 agility, or a reroll of 1 die.

22 hours ago, Zazaa said:

So what you guys would think if FFG would come with an idea of changing all the PWT's and Secondary Weapon Turrets to Mobile Arc turrets, so they would be using the same rules?

.....

**** NO!

Why? Look at any of the many previous thread offering the same suggestion.

19 hours ago, MalusCalibur said:

It's a common opinion that the mobile arc is 'what PWT's should have been all along'.

Only among the group that has something against turrets.

1 hour ago, VanorDM said:

Would have to be a fairly sizeable reduction in points to make getting rid of those slots worth it. Not that there's a ton of torps or missiles on most large ships, but you are giving up a slot, and making your ship less effective.

This is only there to prevent Jumpmasters from abusing it to be even cheaper torpedo carriers. Jumpmasters don't need the point reduction, they would be good even without a PWT at their current price.

3 minutes ago, Mrk1984 said:

This is only there to prevent Jumpmasters from abusing it to be even cheaper torpedo carriers.

I get that, but at the same time you can't remove a slot from a ship without giving it something return. Sure you don't want cheaper jumpmasters, but that doesn't mean it's fair to remove the slots from things like the YT-1300's without giving them something back.

3 hours ago, VanorDM said:

It may work if you made them optional and gave them some sort of benefit for using mobile firing arcs, but that's the only way, if it were optional. Which would make it something other than simple.

What you can't do is require that people buy something new so they can use ship they already own.

Seriously, people threw a fit over the new damage deck, can you imagine the outrage over having to buy something to use all their turret ships.

33 minutes ago, rubberduck said:

Seriously, people threw a fit over the new damage deck, can you imagine the outrage over having to buy something to use all their turret ships.

Exactly... Having something optional that offers a buff in exchange the loss of 360 degs could get people to buy it, but there is no way FFG could get away with making it a requirement.

52 minutes ago, VanorDM said:

I get that, but at the same time you can't remove a slot from a ship without giving it something return. Sure you don't want cheaper jumpmasters, but that doesn't mean it's fair to remove the slots from things like the YT-1300's without giving them something back.

The ships would be getting a point reduction, for the loss of the PWT and ordinance slots, and a possible free rotation action, it's not mandatory (similar to the x7). Other than a JM5K, what large PWT ships use their missile or torpedo slots?

Just now, Mrk1984 said:

Other than a JM5K, what large PWT ships use their missile or torpedo slots?

Well that is the problem with a point reduction, you really don't want to make the jumpmaster any cheaper. But the cost of those slots are factored into the point value of the ship, so you can't simply remove them without giving them something in return.

2 hours ago, rubberduck said:

Seriously, people threw a fit over the new damage deck, can you imagine the outrage over having to buy something to use all their turret ships.

It wouldn't be so bad if FFG either sold the new damage deck separately or even handed them out at all nationals and system opens. Much like the dial fiasco when Most Wanted came out, if they had the dial upgrade kits before they tried to force dials to faction only allowing players to take their rebel Y-wings and Z-95 and turn them into scum ships it would be great.

The main problem with this (and not talking about theme yet) is it does what X-wing 2.0 should NEVER do, and that is illegitimize older models. If there is an X-wing 2.0 there needs to be a way to continue the older models into the game.

Also for the haters of the falcon I need to remind the OP that the Falcon did not have a single turret but 2 . So if you want to get technical it should be able to make 2 attacks out of arc . You got to compromise somewhere. The Outer Rim Smuggler, yeah that should be a MFA.

7 hours ago, VanorDM said:

What you can't do is require that people buy something new so they can use ship they already own.

While I agree they won't... yes you can.

Happens in collectible games and table top gaming all the time, as a matter of course really: new companion product, required to be present to use prior materials.

Certainly I'd be surprised to see FFG go this route... but this notion that this would be unprecedented or even irregular is extremely prevalent and also pretty silly.

IF they do anything to stop the dumbing down of tactical flying via turrets, I'd guess it'd be some simple mechanic, such as no modification out of arc.

Remember that secondary turrets were mediocre at best until the TLT showed up. The rest of them remain solidly 2nd tier, or worse.

While I have some sympathy for mobile turrets on the bigger ships, it's important not to overstate their effect on the game.

Sorry, it's neither practical nor necessary.

RoV

I suppose if FFG wanted to "test" the idea they could release a turret upgrade that requires an Action any time you want to use it. Of course look how well that worked out for the Blaster Turret and that just requires a token which is a lot easier to get than an action may be.