We always see page after page of TLT whining about how it needs a nerf. IMO this change would be the best option to satisfy all parties. The focus requirement is just restrictive enough that it makes stress/crits really count (stress in particular is something which TLT ignores too easily), yet not restrictive enough that a 6 point upgrade ceases to see play. In addition this further enhances the control aspect of the game. Sure there are other ways of generating focus tokens but these are relatively few and far between for TLT ships.

It would be an improvement (to balance), yes.

TLT should also not be range 3.

I'd prefer a TL (or Focus) requirement only to take the 2nd shot.

So, without the prerequisite token you have just a 3 dice (single damage) attack.

1 hour ago, Hannes Solo said:

TLT should also not be range 3.

It can not be overstated how important the range benefit is!

Range 3 covers as much area as ranges 1+2 together. TLT thus combines both the largest area of all turrets and the most reliable damage.

So changing the range to 1-2 as most other turrets have, too, would be a great solution.

ICT is 5pt for 1dmg+ion, so why is TLT with 6pt for 1+1dmg in two reliable attacks too expensive?

It would equalize the turrets in a positive way while retaining their individual differences, and it would put an actual opportunity cost on non-arc secondary weapons.

I think it‘s really all we need

All turrets should require a focus or Target lock.

Imagine, if you are shooting with and arc locked ship, you are shooting in front of you. No need to track your mark, aside from the flying you already do.

As a turret however, flying is out of your control and requires some compensation. Like a focus or a targeting computer...

TLT should make a 2nd attack only if the 1st attack hits.

18 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

It can not be overstated how important the range benefit is!

Range 3 covers as much area as ranges 1+2 together. TLT thus combines both the largest area of all turrets and the most reliable damage.

So changing the range to 1-2 as most other turrets have, too, would be a great solution.

ICT is 5pt for 1dmg+ion, so why is TLT with 6pt for 1+1dmg in two reliable attacks too expensive?

It would equalize the turrets in a positive way while retaining their individual differences, and it would put an actual opportunity cost on non-arc secondary weapons.

I think it‘s really all we need

13 minutes ago, RufusDaMan said:

All turrets should require a focus or Target lock.

Imagine, if you are shooting with and arc locked ship, you are shooting in front of you. No need to track your mark, aside from the flying you already do.

As a turret however, flying is out of your control and requires some compensation. Like a focus or a targeting computer...

3 minutes ago, Jehan Menasis said:

TLT should make a 2nd attack only if the 1st attack hits.

All of this! Nerf it to the binder! I hate that thing so much.

As a more aggressive player I really like the range 1 donut hole, I do acknowledge however that bombs + TLT have created a scenario where it sucks to be at r3 and range 1. I'm happy with the range the way it is, but do appreciate the range combined with the secondary weapon does hurt evaders.

See I don't think TLT is as awful as many make out but it is the no brainer choice for a turret slot unless you're going for the AC AB combo for r1 deadliness. I don't think it needs a huge change to the way it works which is why the focus/target lock requirement works so well. If you're stressed, no TLT, Carnor Jax? No TLT. Action crit? No TLT. Dropping mines? No TLT. As things stand it's too easy to have your cake and eat it with TLT.

Beside that its hard to justify why you can't get an additional green dice against a turret in range 3 (you get one against a PWT!) Turret Upgrades being max range 2 was balancing their out of arc capabilities.

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

It can not be overstated how important the range benefit is!

Range 3 covers as much area as ranges 1+2 together. TLT thus combines both the largest area of all turrets and the most reliable damage.

So changing the range to 1-2 as most other turrets have, too, would be a great solution.

ICT is 5pt for 1dmg+ion, so why is TLT with 6pt for 1+1dmg in two reliable attacks too expensive?

It would equalize the turrets in a positive way while retaining their individual differences, and it would put an actual opportunity cost on non-arc secondary weapons.

I think it‘s really all we need

Kill the only turret upgrade with an R3 reach? I don't think that is a good idea. I really think that would cause more problems than it would solve. The unintended consequences of that 'fix' could be more upsetting to game balance than you realise.

3 hours ago, Hannes Solo said:

TLT should also not be range 3.

I disagree. I think the issue is that TLT does too much damage, too consistently, and too cheaply. If those things were balanced, I don't think having a secondary-weapon turret with a range of 2-3 would be a problem. Moreover, I think the game ought to have some kind of balanced range 2-3 turret. How about something like 3 points for a 3 dice, range 2-3, "if this attack hits, cancel all but one hit or crit result." I'd be fine if range 3 gave a defensive die, though. I just want ships--particularly the HWK--to be able to reach range 3, if that's how they chose to build the ship. If the balance is right in terms of points cost and damage output, range 3 ought to be an option for list building.

TLT is far too strong, however, for its point cost. My personal favorite nerf would just be to ban the bloody thing and print one or two new balanced turrets with range 2-3, but that isn't going to happen. Next would be that you only get the second shot if the target is in your firing arc. Two shots only on a target locked ship also works. I don't like "second shot only if you hit" since that still greatly punishes the kind of low-agility ships TLT already preys on.

Meanwhile, Miranda Doni's ability should be Primary, Torpedo and Missile attacks only.

12 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I disagree. I think the issue is that TLT does too much damage, too consistently, and too cheaply. If those things were balanced, I don't think having a secondary-weapon turret with a range of 2-3 would be a problem. Moreover, I think the game ought to have some kind of balanced range 2-3 turret. How about something like 3 points for a 3 dice, range 2-3, "if this attack hits, cancel all but one hit or crit result." I'd be fine if range 3 gave a defensive die, though. I just want ships--particularly the HWK--to be able to reach range 3, if that's how they chose to build the ship.

People please stop trying to fix the HWK with turrets. These things can go to other ships too.

4 minutes ago, Hannes Solo said:

People please stop trying to fix the HWK with turrets. These things can go to other ships too.

I also want the Y-Wing and TIE Aggressor to have reasonable range-3 experiences, too.

Extra coverage does matter, and compounds the issues of TLT doing more damage, more reliably than it should for its cost. But if the cost and damage were right, the range wouldn't be an issue.

1 minute ago, theBitterFig said:

I also want the Y-Wing and TIE Aggressor to have reasonable range-3 experiences, too.

Extra coverage does matter, and compounds the issues of TLT doing more damage, more reliably than it should for its cost. But if the cost and damage were right, the range wouldn't be an issue.

Y-Wing has Torps, Agressor has Missiles - Done.
Also I wouldn't be against a +1 Range in Arc Special ability but These out-of -arc death zones need to be limited.

21 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

Kill the only turret upgrade with an R3 reach? I don't think that is a good idea. I really think that would cause more problems than it would solve. The unintended consequences of that 'fix' could be more upsetting to game balance than you realise.

17 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I disagree. I think the issue is that TLT does too much damage, too consistently, and too cheaply. If those things were balanced, I don't think having a secondary-weapon turret with a range of 2-3 would be a problem. Moreover, I think the game ought to have some kind of balanced range 2-3 turret

Yes and no.

I agree that the game should provide a range 3 turret, but I don't think TLT should be the one. You also need to be careful with that because turrets do not suffer from range penalty ! That's another frequent suggestion that makes a ton of sense - change laser weapons to the same mechanic as primaries! Otherwise a range 3 secondary laser is always very good. A range 3 secondary laser with a 360° arc is amazing! So these turrets clearly need some form of additional cost beside the squad points, as two turrets with range 2 already have.

So which turrets do we have?
Out of the 6 turrets, ABT and Dorsal are intended for range 1. ICT is a control turret, and it like stress, jamming and tractor is probably better kept at range 1-2.
But then we also have 3 turrets that are only there to deal damage. Blaster can deal up to 3, but comes at a cost (focus) and is only R1-2. Synced can deal up to 3, but comes at a cost (TL) and is only R1-2. The remaining damage turret TLT is so out of line that it is rather ridiculous! Very consistent damage because you roll 2x 3 dice, no limiting constraints like the other two, and only slightly more expensive.

So yes I agree that there should be a range 3 turret. But no, TLT should absolutely not be the one with range 3!

Currently there are only three 2 agility ships that can take the TLT. The Tie Aggressor, the HWK 290 and the Attack Shuttle. All with five total health or less. Everything else is 0 or 1 agility. None of the ship's are particularly hard to kill with the exception of Miranda and the VCX 10. Of the two, the VCX with the Attack Shuttle and titles is by far the worst to face, especially in the end game with the TLT double tap.

Of all the recommendations, including "Nerfing to the binder", the easiest, most logical and the only one that affects the TLT is to add a green die at R3. It doesn't solve any problems but it does help with damage mitigation. Especially on high agility aces.

2 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

Currently there are only three 2 agility ships that can take the TLT. The Tie Aggressor, the HWK 290 and the Attack Shuttle. All with five total health or less. Everything else is 0 or 1 agility. None of the ship's are particularly hard to kill with the exception of Miranda and the VCX 10. Of the two, the VCX with the Attack Shuttle and titles is by far the worst to face, especially in the end game with the TLT double tap.

Of all the recommendations, including "Nerfing to the binder", the easiest, most logical and the only one that affects the TLT is to add a green die at R3. It doesn't solve any problems but it does help with damage mitigation. Especially on high agility aces.

I'd still rather have its actions limited than get an extra green out of it.

12 minutes ago, Hannes Solo said:

Y-Wing has Torps, Agressor has Missiles - Done.

Don't fix the HWK with turrets. Fix the Y-Wing and Aggressor with torps/missiles. Got it.

8 minutes ago, Hannes Solo said:

Y-Wing has Torps, Agressor has Missiles - Done.
Also I wouldn't be against a +1 Range in Arc Special ability but These out-of -arc death zones need to be limited.

Are you forgetting dials? The Y-Wing isn't exactly an exemplar of agility or green moves. A lot of red on that dial. The Agressor is better but with one more green and a lot less red. The Y is definitely not a dogfighter.

2 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

most logical and the only one that affects the TLT is to add a green die at R3. It doesn't solve any problems but it does help with damage mitigation. Especially on high agility aces.

That's also an option. But honestly, a simple range change and releasing a new range 3 turret has many advantages IMO and seems to be more in line with FFG's thinking. They often prefer a rerelease instead of rebalance.

Also, to clarify, when I say the TLT should not be the one with R3 then I mean of course the TLT as he is currently.

A focus restriction would mean that the cost of area-doubling from Blaster to TLT is 2pt, which seems very low
An additional agility die, as you suggest, would be a quite elegant solution as it pushes the TLTcarrier more towards range2, bringing the range1 band closer. It would also lower the damage compared to Synced/Blaster. But I don't think it's enough.
A change to only getting the 2nd attack if the first hit would lower the damage enough, but this would also be very atypical for FFG.
A range reduction would be easy to implement, uncomplicated and lead to the desired effect while also massively opening up design space for future turrets where the designers are more aware of the problem of turret wing.

18 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

So which turrets do we have?

I love the tradeoffs of the range 1-2 turrets. Ion has control but low damage. Blaster has flexibility and high damage potential, but costs an action. Synced is harder to target but has the highest damage potential. Dorsal is the most flexible, but has lower potential damage at range 2. It's a great set of choices.

That's why I want range 3 turrets to have similar choices,suggested an alternate range 2-3 turret, and specifically said I want to limit the TLT damage, and specifically said range 3 turrets probably should give the defender a range 3 bonus green die.

Just make crits not count sounds fine to me.

3 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I love the tradeoffs of the range 1-2 turrets. Ion has control but low damage. Blaster has flexibility and high damage potential, but costs an action. Synced is harder to target but has the highest damage potential. Dorsal is the most flexible, but has lower potential damage at range 2. It's a great set of choices.

Absolutely. They are maybe a bit on the expensive side, but we've now seen why that's a good thing!

3 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

That's why I want range 3 turrets to have similar choices,suggested an alternate range 2-3 turret, and specifically said I want to limit the TLT damage, and specifically said range 3 turrets probably should give the defender a range 3 bonus green die.

We basically agree. I just think the bonus green is not enough (even though it is very elegant), but we agree that the TLT does too much damage to consistently on too large an area.

3 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

Are you forgetting dials? The Y-Wing isn't exactly an exemplar of agility or green moves. A lot of red on that dial. The Agressor is better but with one more green and a lot less red. The Y is definitely not a dogfighter.

No. And I never said the (naked)Y-Wing is in a good spot. That ship is overcosted I do not deny that. But straping an OP Turret on its back my fix the Y-Wing but damaged the rest of the game.
I say nerf the TLT people realise that there are other turret upgrades and then buff these ships in a way that fits their character.