Hello, as you all remember on Ver1, the image for Autoblaster Turret (3 Red dice), was from the mounted Hawk290 Moldy Crow blaster

The same goes for Twin Laser Turret which was the image from the K-wing's TLT on top of the cockpit.

FFG considered they were very powerful and removed them but i think it would be better if we got these 2 modifications that would make both ships better to fly :

a. Moldy Crow Title : Gain forward facing lasers of 3 Red Attack dice AND gain an Autoblaster Turret of 3 Red Dice.

Hawks without the title, should have only forward facing 2dice lasers

b. Kwing should have printed on the card : Τwin Laser Turret (the text from Ver1) and it should be the only ship in 2nd Ed that would use TLTs

what do u think???

1.0 tlts were nightmares that were part of a massive ramp up in power level, bringing them back in any form should be avoided at all cost.

And what about the Quad Turbolaset Turret under Kwings cockpit? shouldnt this be 3 Red Die Turret by default???

7 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

1.0 tlts were nightmares that were part of a massive ramp up in power level, bringing them back in any form should be avoided at all cost.

I think Kwings would really need them even if they made them more expensive.

Xwing should be balanced BUT it should make you feel that youre flying very strong ships when you fly a HEAVILY MODIFIED Hwk290

or using the Quad Turbolasers AND Twin Turrets of a Kwing.

Only 2red dice turrets on the Kwing is a disgrace

I’m in favor of bringing both back into the game. We need more turret options (aggressor 👀)....

that being said they’d need to be 2.0- ified.

I agree, I miss TLT.

We should also bring back some kind of ace damage-resistance, perhaps something like Autothrusters though, because I worry what high red-dice turrets would do to fragile aces like Kylo and Guri.

Meanwhile, to make these aces more hittable, we'd also want to bring back some stuff like Guidance Chips and Harpoon Missiles, just to round things out.

I also noticed in wookiepedia that Kwings sport QUAD TURBOLASER CANNON under the nose, short range...and you thing 2 Red Dice is OK for SUCH firepower????

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/BTL-S8_K-wing_assault_starfighter

@topacesteve lol you’re story brain is outrunning your game balance brain. There’s a thousand canon vs game balance errors in this game.

@Kyle Ren autothrusters in 2.0 is 2 die turret attacks that only go out to range 2 😝

A thought: would a TLT that worked like this be so terrible? (Honest question)

TLT: 2 red dice range 2-3 single turret arc . If this attack hits, cancel all results and deal one damage to the opponent. If the attack missed, you may perform a bonus attack with this weapon against the same target.

It still has the ability to do chip damage but only one. It would be confined to a single turret arc, it would stack with veteran turret gunner but only for dice roll. It would still have a range 1 bubble. The defender would get access to a bonus dice if the attack was at range 3.

Possible balance considerations: It could read "your attack dice cannot be modified". This could be applied to both attacks or possibly just to the follow up bonus shot. It would keep force users from really ensuring that those hits got through.

Also, you could make the follow up bonus shot charge based. Give it 3 charges to perform the follow up attack on misses?

In the rush to bring out 2.0 there are many ships, like the KWing, that didn't get enough thought put into them. At this point, the conversion kits are made and done. Maybe yet another conversion kit, call it ace pack, or upgrade pack can come out with the thought some of these ships deserved.

I think the OP means Blaster Turret, not Autoblaster Turret. What with the Blaster Turret being the 3 red dice they're talking about and the Autoblaster Turret being only 2 red dice.

Also: No.

1e-style TLT has always been bad design, and shouldn't exist.

• It skews too heavily against over-punishing low-agility ships, which are already generally at a disadvantage.
• On top of that, there's an awkward non-linearity which is kinda toxic regardless of power level. Against every attack currently in X-Wing except Mag-Pulse Warheads, each marginal evade matters. One more evade result means one fewer damage or negative token inflicted. That's some good design right there. Each hit and each evade matter. 1e-style TLT abandons that. One hit is as good as three, one too few evades is as irrelevant as no evades at all.
• Tricks like "cancel the crits" or "your dice cannot be modified" do not actually improve it. Honestly, I think these things make it worse, since again it over-punishes low-agility ships and leans more heavily into the non-linearity. They're also needlessly complex. Just don't have the stupid broken weapon and you don't have to come up with tricks to fix it.
• I'd rather see a K-Wing get a 3-dice turret than see 1e-style TLT come back, but even that probably isn't good. Mostly, K-Wings just need access to something akin to Experimental Scanners or Passive Sensors.

That said, there should be more turret options in the game.

• If I did a Twin Laser Turret upgrade, I'd make it a double-ended-arc weapon, 2 dice, range 2-3, grants Rotate action. No fancy text.
  • It's roughly the equivalent of Dorsal Turret, but with longer range and bigger arc coverage. I think that wouldn't be too bad. Range 2-3 is a tonne of coverage. Having both ends of the turret saves a lot of action economy. On something like an Aggressor, sure, it's only a chip-damage weapon, but that coverage is huge, and it'd be nice to be able to keep your distance.
  • If someone wants bonus attacks, they can go buy a Veteran Turret Gunner.
    • To that end, I'd be very happy to see a similar upgrade, let's call it "Experienced Turret Gunner" which would be cheaper, but only work when firing off of opposite ends of a two-end turret. It could no longer be used to double-tap when used on a ship with a front-arc primary weapon, and as such could become considerably cheaper. The opposite-ends Veteran Tail Gunner hasn't seen much play, but there's only one ship in the game which can equip it at 4 points (the ARC), and that ship has a 2-dice tail gun and doesn't really fly all that well. If Firespray could equip it at 4 points and not 10 points (since Marauder costs 6), it might see some play. As such, if someone could spend 4 points on a YT-1300 for the option to shoot out of opposite sides with 3 dice primary weapons, that might be worthwhile for the lower cost.
• Autoblaster Turret (it wasn't on the HWK) shouldn't come back. Autoblasters Cannon has managed a way to make uncancellable crit results reasonably, but it wouldn't be good on a turret upgrade. It's too easy for a turret ship to fly somewhere out of arc, and giving them an uncancellable crit really helps their chip damage too much.
• Blaster Turret (this had the HWK art), is something I could see bringing into the game. My current concept: Attack 3, Range 1-2, with 3 recurring charges. Attack {Focus}, spend 3 charges to perform this attack. Grants the Rotate -> Red Focus action.
  • So it's a decently more powerful turret than a Dorsal (although not too strong in the grand scheme... still just 3 dice...), but can only be fired every three turns.
  • HWK is fine as is. Being a turret ship which can rotate and take an action is pretty good, and a nice niche. Transforming it into a 2-dice front arc ship thoroughly robs it of any uniqueness, and just turns it into a worse Y-Wing or TIE Aggressor.
• Synced Turret being "Attack: Lock" but granting a Lock -> Red Rotate action could be cool. You'd always be able to modify your attack after rotating, which is a nice feature.
  • It could be 2-dice like Dorsal, at a similar price. It'd gain action efficiency at the cost of requiring a lock.
  • It could be 3-dice, but then pay through the nose. I don't necessarily mind a Lock-based 3-dice weapon, since lock requirements are kind of a pain.

3 hours ago, Kyle Ren said:

I agree, I miss TLT.

We should also bring back some kind of ace damage-resistance, perhaps something like Autothrusters though, because I worry what high red-dice turrets would do to fragile aces like Kylo and Guri.

Meanwhile, to make these aces more hittable, we'd also want to bring back some stuff like Guidance Chips and Harpoon Missiles, just to round things out.

I think you went a bit too subtle on this one.

In 2.0, TLT would have a 90 degree firing arc, not 360, and with all the multiple action shenanigans some what gone, would TLT be any where near as toxic as it once was? It is hardly a guarantee 2 damage per shot that it once was. With turret arcs, and range restriction, it is hardly even guarantee to even have a shot. Still, with the past toxicity of TLT, any incarnation of it, no matter how tame, may be too much PTSD for people to handle. I don't see how a two attack, 2 damage ceiling weapon only out one 90 degree arc is bad thing when it is already in 2.0 in the form of veteran turret gunner.

3 minutes ago, Mep said:

In 2.0, TLT would have a 90 degree firing arc, not 360, and with all the multiple action shenanigans some what gone, would TLT be any where near as toxic as it once was? It is hardly a guarantee 2 damage per shot that it once was. With turret arcs, and range restriction, it is hardly even guarantee to even have a shot. Still, with the past toxicity of TLT, any incarnation of it, no matter how tame, may be too much PTSD for people to handle. I don't see how a two attack, 2 damage ceiling weapon only out one 90 degree arc is bad thing when it is already in 2.0 in the form of veteran turret gunner.

Tlt is range 2-3 out any arc while vtg is range 1-2 out the front only. Massive difference in area covered and where you have to be pointing. Additionally, tlt carriers in 1e rarely benefited from multiple actions and instead relied on the very nature of tlt as reliable damage to hit things. Tlt would deal more damage in 2e, not less.

TLT in 2.0 would be pretty underpowered. Need to rotate arc, and extra green dice at R3.

58 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

Tlt is range 2-3 out any arc while vtg is range 1-2 out the front only. Massive difference in area covered and where you have to be pointing. Additionally, tlt carriers in 1e rarely benefited from multiple actions and instead relied on the very nature of tlt as reliable damage to hit things. Tlt would deal more damage in 2e, not less.

I remember TLTs having double focuses and target locks in 1.0 to get those hits to land. 360 arcs are not a thing in 2.0. A double shot turret in 2.0 wouldn't be as toxic as 1.0 TLT, which was part of my point, the other part being the PTSD the TLT toxicity caused making it impossible for people to accept in any form, which would be the point of the this response.

Here is my thought on 2.0 TLT:

(Focus): ATK 3: if your attack missed, you get a bonus second attack against the same target.

This gets you tye "feel" of the TLT without the power creep.

4 hours ago, urbanyeti said:

A thought: would a TLT that worked like this be so terrible? (Honest question)

TLT: 2 red dice range 2-3 single turret arc . If this attack hits, cancel all results and deal one damage to the opponent. If the attack missed, you may perform a bonus attack with this weapon against the same target.

by combining range 2-3 with highly consistent damage, you're double emphasizing "set turret sideways and fly wide" playstyles, which are pretty much the worst possible end result for turret gameplay

10 minutes ago, Mep said:

I remember TLTs having double focuses and target locks in 1.0 to get those hits to land.

This was not typical. Most of the time, it was just Nym, Miri, or generic Y-wings throwing the shots out with a Focus at best, occasionally a Target Lock as well if they had found the chance to bank one a few turns earlier. You didn't need more than that because you made so many attacks that natural variance would eventually do the job for you.

Leaving aside the very real balance concerns associated with both those cards, allowing HWKs and K-wings to equip them is problematic in and of itself. Having two overlapping turret markers would never work, so you'd have to make them use the same arc as the ship's existing turret primary, but that causes it's own set of balance and rules headaches.

3 hours ago, DR4CO said:

This was not typical. Most of the time, it was just Nym, Miri, or generic Y-wings throwing the shots out with a Focus at best, occasionally a Target Lock as well if they had found the chance to bank one a few turns earlier. You didn't need more than that because you made so many attacks that natural variance would eventually do the job for you.

I remember plenty of ghosts with fire control, tlt, and double focus.

1 hour ago, Mep said:

I remember plenty of ghosts with fire control, tlt, and double focus.

Sure. Doesn't change that most were not

11 hours ago, topacesteve said:

what do u think???

OP, please don't let the jaded vets ruin your enthusiasm.

First off, I want to be clear that TLT was a game altering upgrade of 1e that massively imbalanced the competitive game in a way that made core ships and basic chassis largely obsolete.

Second, I'll seriously respond to you post by saying that I do think the devs have a plan for the Auto-Turret and TLT (and probably synced turret for Empire as well) in second edition, it will just take the right wave and upgrade pack to see them again.

Third, my expectation is that TLT Reborn will be something close to,. "shoot this, then get a bonus attack", of which are hard-limited in second edition anyway.

After seeing what the devs have done with nerfing other abusive pilots and upgrades in 2e, I'm truly not worried at all about the return of tlt for the Kwing or Autoblaster turret in general.

12 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

1e-style TLT has always been bad design, and shouldn't exist.

• It skews too heavily against over-punishing low-agility ships, which are already generally at a disadvantage.
• On top of that, there's an awkward non-linearity which is kinda toxic regardless of power level. Against every attack currently in X-Wing except Mag-Pulse Warheads, each marginal evade matters. One more evade result means one fewer damage or negative token inflicted. That's some good design right there. Each hit and each evade matter. 1e-style TLT abandons that. One hit is as good as three, one too few evades is as irrelevant as no evades at all.
• Tricks like "cancel the crits" or "your dice cannot be modified" do not actually improve it. Honestly, I think these things make it worse, since again it over-punishes low-agility ships and leans more heavily into the non-linearity. They're also needlessly complex. Just don't have the stupid broken weapon and you don't have to come up with tricks to fix it.

@theBitterFig has it right. The plink&plonk-plink of repeated single damage and evades meaning nothing unless you avoid everything made TLTs a particularly unpleasant part of first edition.

When it arrived, it appeared to be there to counter high agility aces / high PS - which it did to an extent, but it's rules made it a really effective I've weapon against pretty much anything in the game, especially when taken in numbers.

High agility / high PS aces are not the problem they were at the time TLTs were introduced in first edition, and there are also already any number of anti-ace weapons and abilities available in 2nd edition.

The game really doesn't need to regress to the mistakes of it's past.

42 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

@theBitterFig has it right. The plink&plonk-plink of repeated single damage and evades meaning nothing unless you avoid everything made TLTs a particularly unpleasant part of first edition.

When it arrived, it appeared to be there to counter high agility aces / high PS - which it did to an extent, but it's rules made it a really effective I've weapon against pretty much anything in the game, especially when taken in numbers.

High agility / high PS aces are not the problem they were at the time TLTs were introduced in first edition, and there are also already any number of anti-ace weapons and abilities available in 2nd edition.

The game really doesn't need to regress to the mistakes of it's past.

It was also to counter Paul Heaver's Falcon. Between an Evade from the MF title, C-3PO, and R2-D2, it was just hard to push damage on this over the turn. And at that time in 1e, there wasn't even half-points against large base ships, so it was a nigh impenetrable fortress. But TLT was consistent damage against it.

But with the redesign of Evade tokens, Reinforce tokens, and half-pointing, these kinds of large-base monsters are now vulnerable enough to chip damage that the game can go on as normal.

12 hours ago, Mep said:

In 2.0, TLT would have a 90 degree firing arc, not 360, and with all the multiple action shenanigans some what gone, would TLT be any where near as toxic as it once was?

I feel like it's not just mathematical effectiveness, it's the feeling that my green dice don't matter. Things being automatic leads to bad experiences.

Isn't damage automatic against a B-Wing with a roll of 2 hits with a normal attack? Sure, but the defender's green die matters now. When B-Wings get lucky and roll a tonne of Evades, that really stacks up. B-Wing dies to about 7 TIE fighter attacks on average. Good vs bad evade rolling is the difference between dying to 5 and dying to 9. TLT eliminates that agency for the defender.

Although, mathematically, it is pretty bad. TLT is stronger than a 3-dice attack. With Focus against 2 focused greens: TLT does 1.297 expected damage ( http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi_preset/?d=ggAAAAAAAAAA&a1=DdsAAA ), compared to a regular attack's 1.074 hits ( http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi_preset/?d=ggAAAAAAAAAA&a1=AtMAAA ). See more below.

12 hours ago, Stay OT Leader said:

TLT in 2.0 would be pretty underpowered. Need to rotate arc, and extra green dice at R3.

And... turns out that's not actually true.

• Without Offensive Focus
  • That is, using your action to rotate rather than Focus, which should be enough
  • 3 Red Dice vs 4 Green dice with Focus: 0.153 expected damage http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi_preset/?d=hAAAAAAAAAAA&a1=AtEAAA
  • TLT vs 4 Green dice with Focus: 0.316 expected damage http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi_preset/?d=hAAAAAAAAAAA&a1=DdkAAA
  • 4 Dice vs 4 Green Dice with Focus: 0.326 expected damage http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi_preset/?d=hAAAAAAAAAAA&a1=BNEAAA
• With Offensive Focus
  • 3 Red Dice vs 4 Green dice with Focus: 0.350 expected damage http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi_preset/?d=hAAAAAAAAAAA&a1=AtMAAA
  • TLT vs 4 Green dice with Focus: 0.579 expected damage http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi_preset/?d=hAAAAAAAAAAA&a1=DdsAAA
  • 4 Dice vs 4 Green Dice with Focus: 0.787 expected damage http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi_preset/?d=hAAAAAAAAAAA&a1=BNMAAA

So bringing straight TLT into 1e is still really nasty. Significantly stronger than a 3-dice attack, and if both are unfocused, about as good as a FOUR dice attack.

I recall a Mynock podcast at some point, don't remember if Dee or Farmer was saying it, but something to the effect of: the rebuke of the "but TLT is only 2 damage" justification is "Consistently getting two damage is VERY GOOD."

11 hours ago, martini74 said:

Here is my thought on 2.0 TLT:

(Focus): ATK 3: if your attack missed, you get a bonus second attack against the same target.

This gets you tye "feel" of the TLT without the power creep.

Are you prepared for it to cost 20 points? "Attack again when you miss" is what Bossk Gunner does, is limited, costs 10 points, and Bossk gives you a stress. Tacking that onto a Turret upgrade is going to be dang expensive.