There is a real tug-of-war on this one.

Small base turrets like Ys and TIE/ag really want some flexibility, but should gunners be costed to be an auto-include on these small-base platforms?

I feel like you should have a higher cost on the upgrade while keeping the chassis without the gunner viable in a different way.

What about Falcons and Lancers and Decimators?

Gunners seem like a mechanical and thematic NECESSITY on large base turrets platforms, based on meta performance as of March 2019.

Should gunners be base-size costed to be a CHOICE on small bases, but a NO-BRAINER auto include for large base turrets?

I think so.

That said, I'd be fine with a 2-4 point VTG on large bases, but maybe twice that in a small base.

9 minutes ago, Bucknife said:

What about Falcons and Lancers and Decimators?

Isn’t VTG practically worthless on ships with primary turret and no other firing arc?

It is very situational with the double arcs, but you don’t get the double-tap that a jousting Ywing would bring.

I think they are correctly priced.

It's not as common, but I see Y-wings with Torpedoes and no turrets all the time, and a naked Dutch just went all the way in Kentucky. I even see a turrent with no gunner, but to be fair that's usually because the points ran out or the turret was extra points tossed on.

I don't think VTG is too cheap, but I do think many of the other gunners cost too much.

I almost never see it on large bases that aren't the Resistance Bomber, but maybe I'm an outlier.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a scaling cost to VTG... then again, I'd like MORE non-faction locked gunners as well >_>

I feel like the gunner's cost is probably fine as it is right now. Y-wings can go up a little bit just so you can't fit 4 with ion and a 5th with the turret, but it seems fine on everything else. The only other one I'd even look into is the Scurrg but at 53 points minimum I'm really not seeing an issue with it currently.

I don't understand all this hand-wringing over VTG. It only works with ships that have both a primary arc and a turret arc, and the list of ships meeting that criteria is relatively short, and every ship on the list has other problems - including the Y-Wing. Moreover, I don't buy this whole "NPE" outcry over VTG ion Y-Wings. I've been playing the list since January and as people learn to fly against it, my loss rate has been rising. The list is good against other mid-range jousters, but is weak against large-base ships, particularly ones with reinforce, and against aces and interceptors. Simply put, the list can easily be outflown.

As for scaling I think it's gotten quite out of hand (we now have scaling for almost every imaginable characteristic) and would be very disappointed if they started scaling VTG in any way.

Instead, I would recommend that FFG develop some sort of turret that's only for large based ships. Maybe a mini turbolaser of some sort. Incidentally, that would also make large base ships more attractive for players in the present meta.

Base-size would be one easy way to do it, but misses a few things. While Y-Wings are the most common front arc + turret ship, the benefits to a Scurrg, Starfortress, or Ghost are the same. While VTG is weak on large-base Decimators or YTs, it's likewise weak on medium-base K-Wings.

To me, the best thing would be two different gunners.

VTG works from any primary, and any style of turret. It should probably be back at 8 points. Cheaper turret upgrades and Y-Wings are enough to make them still good, despite bringing the gunner back to 8.

Perhaps a new gunner, Expert Turret Gunner, only triggers from double-end turret attacks, and only grants a bonus attack to the other side of the double-end turret. Off the top of my head, 4 points seems right, since it'd be the same as Veteran Tail Gunner: only shooting in two opposite directions.

6 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Base-size would be one easy way to do it, but misses a few things. While Y-Wings are the most common front arc + turret ship, the benefits to a Scurrg, Starfortress, or Ghost are the same. While VTG is weak on large-base Decimators or YTs, it's likewise weak on medium-base K-Wings.

To me, the best thing would be two different gunners.

VTG works from any primary, and any style of turret. It should probably be back at 8 points. Cheaper turret upgrades and Y-Wings are enough to make them still good, despite bringing the gunner back to 8.

Perhaps a new gunner, Expert Turret Gunner, only triggers from double-end turret attacks, and only grants a bonus attack to the other side of the double-end turret. Off the top of my head, 4 points seems right, since it'd be the same as Veteran Tail Gunner: only shooting in two opposite directions.

I'd price it at 5-6 points since the turret arc is moveable. But otherwise I like the idea.

I'd like to fly with my team with VTG first before commenting.

I flew against a trio of Y-Wings with VTG and Ion Cannons just this week and they weren't that horrific. You just have to make sure you don't get in front of them .

Yeah, I have a team set up for next month, Ten in his B-Wing, Wedge in the X-Wing and Dutch, (loaded up) in a Y-Wing, also with VTG. They're set up to wreak havoc in the merge with Torpedoes and then stick tight in the dogfight.

Ten is loaded with an Adv Torp with the other two ships sporting normal Torpedoes. My thought was to have Ten & Dutch fly point with Wedge following behind well within range 1 for Swarm Tactics . . . so . . . Yeah! Get up Close! Please! .

I still need to play with this before I can comment.

24 minutes ago, knute said:

I'd price it at 5-6 points since the turret arc is moveable. But otherwise I like the idea.

I understand the principle, but at the current 6 point price, VTG is probably unplayable. Heck, folks think 4 is unplayable for the Tail Gunner version.

Having flown 5 Y's, I think VTG is in a fine place. The list is strong, but not unbeatable. It isn't dominating the meta, and Hyperspace just got a bunch of new toys to play with.

A point cost change would be overkill.

And as I've said before, the problem with large base ships is that they tend to have lots of hull, and the 2nd edition damage deck Crits are much more powerful than 1st edition.
This is a problem that can't be fixed with points cost changes.

53 minutes ago, knute said:

Instead, I would recommend that FFG develop some sort of turret that's only for large based ships. Maybe a mini turbolaser of some sort. Incidentally, that would also make large base ships more attractive for players in the present meta.

I actually really like this idea.

It'd be in the 1.0 spirit of fixing core box problems with new content...

But I'd totally be on board with a large base only Modification that adds a primary front arc or an additional mobile arc or something.

1 hour ago, knute said:

Instead, I would recommend that FFG develop some sort of turret that's only for large based ships. Maybe a mini turbolaser of some sort. Incidentally, that would also make large base ships more attractive for players in the present meta.

Other than the VCX-100, which iirc is the only large base with a turret upgrade slot, what large base would benefit from this???

17 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Other than the VCX-100, which iirc is the only large base with a turret upgrade slot, what large base would benefit from this???

Fair point. Maybe something restricted to large and medium sized bases then.

I think the 5 Y-wing list (or 4 with extras) is a problem. Not as big of a problem as the 3 first order shuttles but still a problem. I think the best way to deal with VTG is variable points based on the ships other arcs. If you have a PRINTED firing arc (y-wing for example) the cost should be higher than if you don't (YT-1300). That way big ships can still use it at an effective price since they don't double tap the same target but ships that can use it for two attacks on the same target have to pay a little more.

4 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

I understand the principle, but at the current 6 point price, VTG is probably unplayable. Heck, folks think 4 is unplayable for the Tail Gunner version.

I don't find the 6 pt VTG as unplayable, but as a Imperial player who flies a lot of RAC, the problem is that I find there is something better. With VTG on a 3-die primary ship like the VT-49, you only really need to get 1 bonus attack off in a game to get value for it. It is not uncommon at all that this opportunity will present itself at least once, if not twice a game. More to the point, just the presence of it on the ship will change how your opponent flies.

My reason for not taking it often is that for 3 more points, I can put Fifth Brother on RAC instead and the Force token is a lot more helpful over many rounds. So I got that route, instead. Since you typically don't run more than 1 VT-49 in a list (if you fly one at all) there is not many opportunities to see a VTG on a Deci.

9 minutes ago, kris40k said:

I don't find the 6 pt VTG as unplayable, but as a Imperial player who flies a lot of RAC, the problem is that I find there is something better. With VTG on a 3-die primary ship like the VT-49, you only really need to get 1 bonus attack off in a game to get value for it. It is not uncommon at all that this opportunity will present itself at least once, if not twice a game. More to the point, just the presence of it on the ship will change how your opponent flies.

My reason for not taking it often is that for 3 more points, I can put Fifth Brother on RAC instead and the Force token is a lot more helpful over many rounds. So I got that route, instead. Since you typically don't run more than 1 VT-49 in a list (if you fly one at all) there is not many opportunities to see a VTG on a Deci.

Eh maybe. I feel like I'm never reaching for VTG on a YT. Certainly never on a K-Wing. And dang do I wish Rebels had a gunner as cost-effective as 5th Brother.

I do not think they are an auto-include, it really depends on what you are trying to do. I have run y-wings without them to great effect both turreted and not.

I also do not think the price needs to change.

The upgrade seems fine to me.

5 hours ago, Bucknife said:

I actually really like this idea.

It'd be in the 1.0 spirit of fixing core box problems with new content...

But I'd totally be on board with a large base only Modification that adds a primary front arc or an additional mobile arc or something.

Maybe it would let the large base ship fire twice with three dice but only do one damage max per shot..... no wait..... 😱

Changing the arc rules so you can't double tap out of the same direction (ie turret facing forward counts as the same arc as a forward primary arc) would be a really good change.

Or adding some kind of cost to using VTG - like stressing the ship.

Both of these options would of course then need VTG to come further down in points, given they're outright nerfs..

28 minutes ago, ootinni said:

Changing the arc rules so you can't double tap out of the same direction (ie turret facing forward counts as the same arc as a forward primary arc) would be a really good change.

Or adding some kind of cost to using VTG - like stressing the ship.

Both of these options would of course then need VTG to come further down in points, given they're outright nerfs..

Is the double tap on the y-wing really that bad? You need to fly really well to get a good double tap with the dorsal turret and adding a 2die primary after an ion cannon shot is not exactly crazy firepower.

I think people are trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

I find It difficult to get value out of ships that cost twice as much (ish) as a normal ship and only fire once. Logically they would need to be twice as durable, but large ships with low agility and that dont move last die quite quickly. Because VTG works so well on Ywings we want it to work better on large ships but because of ship cost it just isn’t efficient. Maybe the problem is us...

2 hours ago, kris40k said:

I don't find the 6 pt VTG as unplayable, but as a Imperial player who flies a lot of RAC, the problem is that I find there is something better. With VTG on a 3-die primary ship like the VT-49, you only really need to get 1 bonus attack off in a game to get value for it. It is not uncommon at all that this opportunity will present itself at least once, if not twice a game. More to the point, just the presence of it on the ship will change how your opponent flies.

My reason for not taking it often is that for 3 more points, I can put Fifth Brother on RAC instead and the Force token is a lot more helpful over many rounds. So I got that route, instead. Since you typically don't run more than 1 VT-49 in a list (if you fly one at all) there is not many opportunities to see a VTG on a Deci.

I am thinking about trying a RAC list but 5th brother seems redundant. Minister Tua seems better for a point less. Or do you do both?

50 minutes ago, Icelom said:

Is the double tap on the y-wing really that bad? You need to fly really well to get a good double tap with the dorsal turret and adding a 2die primary after an ion cannon shot is not exactly crazy firepower.

I think people are trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

I don't think double-tap needs to be killed, per se. But I think it could use a light touch.

However, a Dorsal VTG Y-Wing is 39 points (not hyperspace legal, but still), an Ion Cannon Turret is 41. A T-65 is 41. Seems to me that, if using the basic X-Wing as a benchmark, then the Y-Wing a little off the mark. Not a lot, not a kill-it-with-fire level, but it needs a nudge back up.

I guess Rebels have A-Wings now, but prior to that, their cheapest ship was a 31 point Y-Wing, or more likely a 35 point Y-Wing with Ion. I'm glad with this pricing. But add the double-tap and I think the total package should cost a little more than an X-Wing or B-Wing. So what would be fair? 2 points more for an Ion Double-Tap Y-Wing than for a similar profile 3-red ship? To me, that sounds right. Y-Wings themselves went down a point, the turrets went down 2 points, and so had VTG. The old 46 points for a Double-Tap Y-Wing was just a little high, but the 5 point drop was also a bit too much.

VTG to 7 or 8, Ion VTG Ys to 42 or 43, doesn't kill 4 VTG Y-Wings, but means a 5Y has to run three without gunners. Not that huge. But the relative prices and power levels of X-Wings and Y-Wings feel like they'd be in better balance.