So, I was watching an un-boxing of the imperial conversion kit and noticed that in the rules pamphlet, that the dual turret was on piece of cardboard. Using the Falcon as an example, does this mean that it can only fire from the left and right arcs or the front and back arcs at the same time? If so, this is kind of crap. They are two independent turrets, there should be two single turret indicators so that I could fire from the front and left, or the left and back, etc.

Could someone with more knowledge than me please clear this up?

Thanks,

XiliX

The dual turret is indeed a pair of opposed arcs.

Note that under normal circumstances, you only get to fire from one of them anyway, not both, so the whole thing is a bit stylized at best.

its to represent they have multiple turrets without giving them a rotating 180 arc, which would be just as bad as the 360 one in practice unless you dove right down someones throat and between his ships.

I can see the situation come up often where you know that an enemy ship will probably end up in the front or left arc (or any two adjacent arcs) so you would want to rotate your turrets to optimize the chance of having a shot. With the turret arcs static at 180 you can't do this.

I realize we can't have it all perfect, but this disappointed me a bit.

Thanks,

XiliX

I think that's deliberate; so there will always be a potential blind spot within 90' of your planned shot (which your opponent might have the ability to exploit).

"There's always a blind spot somewhere" is a big theme of this edition - albeit with Luke as an option if you're prepared to suck up the cost of not wanting to deal with this problem.

Not to mention if they were independent, you could potentially doubletap a target pretty easily.

Vet Gunner lets you fire out of both arcs, if you could have one forward and one left while someone is sitting on the line between them that would let you hit them twice. And with the way 2.0 is heading, that would be broken as balls

Both very valid points.

The HWK with the Moldy Crow title will be able to have both a front arc & rotating primary turret, so although not as beefy as the Falcon it is something to give a good long look at. It's almost a half-step between what you're getting (the bow-tie arc) and two independent turrets that you were expecting.

I know the Y has a forward arc & turret slot (and Gunner slot) so that's another one to consider, but the HWK has a crew which may be more useful, arguably.

You can also always equip the Falcon with missiles so your front arc is always in play.

4 hours ago, XiliX said:

So, I was watching an un-boxing of the imperial conversion kit and noticed that in the rules pamphlet, that the dual turret was on piece of cardboard. Using the Falcon as an example, does this mean that it can only fire from the left and right arcs or the front and back arcs at the same time? If so, this is kind of crap. They are two independent turrets, there should be two single turret indicators so that I could fire from the front and left, or the left and back, etc.

Could someone with more knowledge than me please clear this up?

Thanks,

XiliX

3 hours ago, XiliX said:

I can see the situation come up often where you know that an enemy ship will probably end up in the front or left arc (or any two adjacent arcs) so you would want to rotate your turrets to optimize the chance of having a shot. With the turret arcs static at 180 you can't do this.

I realize we can't have it all perfect, but this disappointed me a bit.

Thanks,

XiliX

Thematically, it may be somewhat of a stretch, but I think I like it from a gameplay perspective. It allows gaps that reward good flying, while still giving turrets some utility.

4 hours ago, XiliX said:

I can see the situation come up often where you know that an enemy ship will probably end up in the front or left arc (or any two adjacent arcs) so you would want to rotate your turrets to optimize the chance of having a shot. With the turret arcs static at 180 you can't do this.

I realize we can't have it all perfect, but this disappointed me a bit.

Thanks,

XiliX

yeah as you see the best point to approach turrets would be from the diagonals so you can get from front/aft to sides depending on how they rotate the turret. Many players (Arc dodgers who enjoyed moving after all dials have been revealed) complained that there was no approach angle to turrets. Once you can attack them they can attack you. So Initiative is now even more important than pilot skill for turrets. You want Initiative 6 if you fly a turret so Han and Dengar and nothing else (Sorry RAC). Low initiative turrets are going to be hot garbage. If the turrets were 180 arcs then it might be better for Initiative 1 Y-wings, but unless they want to change turrets from 4 cardinal directions to 8 directions you can count on Initiative 6 or BUST .

5 hours ago, XiliX said:

I can see the situation come up often where you know that an enemy ship will probably end up in the front or left arc (or any two adjacent arcs) so you would want to rotate your turrets to optimize the chance of having a shot. With the turret arcs static at 180 you can't do this.

I realize we can't have it all perfect, but this disappointed me a bit.

Thanks,

XiliX

3 hours ago, Marinealver said:

yeah as you see the best point to approach turrets would be from the diagonals so you can get from front/aft to sides depending on how they rotate the turret. Many players (Arc dodgers who enjoyed moving after all dials have been revealed) complained that there was no approach angle to turrets. Once you can attack them they can attack you. So Initiative is now even more important than pilot skill for turrets. You want Initiative 6 if you fly a turret so Han and Dengar and nothing else (Sorry RAC). Low initiative turrets are going to be hot garbage. If the turrets were 180 arcs then it might be better for Initiative 1 Y-wings, but unless they want to change turrets from 4 cardinal directions to 8 directions you can count on Initiative 6 or BUST .

Depends entirely on cost. FFG has been getting better at paying pilot skill appropriately; hopefully we see this continue into 2nd edition. I imagine Initiative 6 turrets will pay much more than the standard 1 point for 1PS.

7 hours ago, Ailowynn said:

Depends entirely on cost. FFG has been getting better at paying pilot skill appropriately; hopefully we see this continue into 2nd edition. I imagine Initiative 6 turrets will pay much more than the standard 1 point for 1PS.

Well cost doesn't matter no doubt they will make adjustments based off of tournament results than calculated value. The thing is the smaller scale of initiative doesn't necessary fix the same problem that Pilot skill had which was the best values are the absolute highest and absolute lowest. 4 5 and 6 were the worst pilot skill in the game yet they cost more than pilots kill 3. In 2nd edition Initiative 3 and 4 should cost exactly the same as 1 and 2 because they are trading movement for a pilot ability.

5 hours ago, Marinealver said:

Well cost doesn't matter no doubt they will make adjustments based off of tournament results than calculated value. The thing is the smaller scale of initiative doesn't necessary fix the same problem that Pilot skill had which was the best values are the absolute highest and absolute lowest. 4 5 and 6 were the worst pilot skill in the game yet they cost more than pilots kill 3. In 2nd edition Initiative 3 and 4 should cost exactly the same as 1 and 2 because they are trading movement for a pilot ability.

It's been pretty strongly implied that this will be the case by Alex, IIRC he said that both B wing generics cost the same - and also, it's worth noting that Double Edge and the higher PS generic Aggressor cost the same, and Countdown and the EPT Striker generic cost the same.

I suspect we'll see much less divergence in costs at the lower end of the scale than we used to.