15 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

In general, I hate how a very small number of pilots can ruin upgrades for everyone else, and maybe it'd be a good idea to have a list of 5-6 ships where they can't take a certain upgrade.

Not just upgrades, but pilots can destroy even whole mechanics. Stupid Nantax ruined Tractor, requiring a rules change, which completely ruined the Quadjumper.

Vader destroys Passive Sensors and Afterburners. People speculate like 9pts for Afterburner at Ini 5 and 12 for Ini 6...but speaking of Kavil, he is actually one who profits from Afterburner (giving him action economy), but struggles already justifying the expense with Afterburner at 6 pts. 9 is completely hilarious for someone like Kavil.

I argumented for ban-lists already in 1st ed. But for some reason FFG seems really unwilling to do that. Which is a pity, as it just not only makes balancing a pain, but also restricts future design space totally unneccessary. Ban the hypothetical turret on Kavil and maybe Broadside. Ban Afterburners and PS for Vader, ban Illicit for Han Falcon, but allow for the other Falcon pilots; and so forth.

To that end, what *would* a 3-dice turret cost?

If we presume the Scum and Resistance YT-1300s are about correctly priced, the 2-to-3 dice step up is worth about 14 points. Scurrg + Turret being about equivalent to a Resistance YT-1300 is around 15 points. Almost feels low. A Y-Wing coming in at around 45 points, a TIE Aggressor at 41. But the fast answer is "at least 15 points, probably more."

//

I'm not even sure that VTG would be a problem at this price... 70 points for a VTG Scurrg (74 for Drea) seems manageable.

4 minutes ago, Managarmr said:

Not just upgrades, but pilots can destroy even whole mechanics. Stupid Nantax ruined Tractor, requiring a rules change, which completely ruined the Quadjumper.

Vader destroys Passive Sensors and Afterburners. People speculate like 9pts for Afterburner at Ini 5 and 12 for Ini 6...but speaking of Kavil, he is actually one who profits from Afterburner (giving him action economy), but struggles already justifying the expense with Afterburner at 6 pts. 9 is completely hilarious for someone like Kavil.

I argumented for ban-lists already in 1st ed. But for some reason FFG seems really unwilling to do that. Which is a pity, as it just not only makes balancing a pain, but also restricts future design space totally unneccessary. Ban the hypothetical turret on Kavil and maybe Broadside. Ban Afterburners and PS for Vader, ban Illicit for Han Falcon, but allow for the other Falcon pilots; and so forth.

Agree mostly.

Tractor was bull**** anyhow. Ketsu was a massive bully. Quadjumpers were terribly unfun to play against when they were down at 28 points.

I like the thought of a 3 die turret, with the caveat that it somehow has to work around the pilots mentioned already. I'm really not sure what could do that, though.

A separate idea I had for TLT: 2 attack, range 2-3, you may add 1 blank result to your roll (this die can be rerolled or otherwise modified). Maybe have the blank result work off of a charge or recurring charge.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

In some cases it'd be better than TLT, in some cases worse. Against a higher agility ship, TLT is better (see my post with probability calculator results at the bottom of the first page).

Just to clarify, I meant "it's better than getting a TLT". My statement was ambiguous.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

In general, I hate how a very small number of pilots can ruin upgrades for everyone else

Agreed. Some can be addressed by removing slots and whatnot, but removing a turret isn't an option for those three pilots. Kavil would become a mini-YT2400, ick. Each new turret idea I come up with is kinda ruined by one of those Y-wing pilots. Drea effects things, too, as you would probably never add a double-arc turret upgrade with her around, but with her new prohibitive cost, maybe you could work it.

Seeing as people are posting their turret ideas, I'd thought I'd throw my ideas for you guys to talk about. Open to suggestions. I like turret play, and I hope that we get more turret options.

First one:

As with Autoblasters (Cannon), I kept the idea that crit results cannot be canceled. I don't particularly like uncancelable results, but I'd rather keep the theme consistent. Made the restriction for it at Range 1 instead of outside of defender's arc to encourage/reward the player for flying close to their opponent. It would also allow some counterplay by keeping distance or barrel rolling/boosting out of arc/Range 1. I might make the crit effect more restricted, I dunno. Would be pretty strong for the Scum faction w/ Kavil or Greedo gunner. Thinking about 6-7 points.

Second one:

This one was fun to make. I really wanted to make a base three dice turret, but it might be hard to balance because of the extra dice. So I gave it the ordinance icon to not apply the range bonus, which encouraged me to just make it an ordinance turret. Since ordinance is usually capable of longer range, I made the range 2-3. Might be too powerful by denying the range 3 bonus. No, the Reload action does not recover charges on Turrets (and Quinn Jast can't take it), so once you're out of charges, that's it. It's also Lock-dependent, so you can't just rotate to shoot it - picking the right action action matters and makes your target limited. That could change with R3 astromech, though. Does this encourage boring turret play by keeping range? Yes, but three dice turret ships already exist, and counterplay is possible by Jamming off locks or keeping out of arc/Range 1. Kavil would be strong with this, but he could always raise in price and he would only gets 4 shots. Broadside wouldn't like this too much, since he needs focus tokens or expensive force gunners/wingmen.

Thinking about 12-15 points.

If you guys think that it's too hard to balance, a weaker version would be two dice, range 1-2, no range bonus, 3 charges instead of 4, limiting ships by making it cost a Missile slot, limiting the upgrade itself, or capping the max damage to 1. An interesting idea would be to give the weaker version linked Rotate to red Target Lock.

Thoughts?

(I didn't do TLT, I think it should stay in 1.0)

11 minutes ago, ImperialAce95 said:

At range 1 you'd be throwing 3 dice with uncancelable crits. 4 for Kavil. With Greedo gunner, he'd be dealing at least 1 uncancellable crit a round. Sounds harsh.

11 minutes ago, ImperialAce95 said:

I like this idea. Make it require a turret and a missile slot and you have a turret for the Aggressor that can't be taken by any of the troublesome Y-Wing pilots, or anyone else for that matter. Add a missile slot (or a new title that does) to the Scurrg (since harpoons aren't around making that ship NPE) and it could take it, too. 10/10. Would endorse.

2 hours ago, ImperialAce95 said:

Seeing as people are posting their turret ideas, I'd thought I'd throw my ideas for you guys to talk about. Open to suggestions. I like turret play, and I hope that we get more turret options.

First one:

As with Autoblasters (Cannon), I kept the idea that crit results cannot be canceled. I don't particularly like uncancelable results, but I'd rather keep the theme consistent. Made the restriction for it at Range 1 instead of outside of defender's arc to encourage/reward the player for flying close to their opponent. It would also allow some counterplay by keeping distance or barrel rolling/boosting out of arc/Range 1. I might make the crit effect more restricted, I dunno. Would be pretty strong for the Scum faction w/ Kavil or Greedo gunner. Thinking about 6-7 points.

Second one:

This one was fun to make. I really wanted to make a base three dice turret, but it might be hard to balance because of the extra dice. So I gave it the ordinance icon to not apply the range bonus, which encouraged me to just make it an ordinance turret. Since ordinance is usually capable of longer range, I made the range 2-3. Might be too powerful by denying the range 3 bonus. No, the Reload action does not recover charges on Turrets (and Quinn Jast can't take it), so once you're out of charges, that's it. It's also Lock-dependent, so you can't just rotate to shoot it - picking the right action action matters and makes your target limited. That could change with R3 astromech, though. Does this encourage boring turret play by keeping range? Yes, but three dice turret ships already exist, and counterplay is possible by Jamming off locks or keeping out of arc/Range 1. Kavil would be strong with this, but he could always raise in price and he would only gets 4 shots. Broadside wouldn't like this too much, since he needs focus tokens or expensive force gunners/wingmen.

Thinking about 12-15 points.

If you guys think that it's too hard to balance, a weaker version would be two dice, range 1-2, no range bonus, 3 charges instead of 4, limiting ships by making it cost a Missile slot, limiting the upgrade itself, or capping the max damage to 1. An interesting idea would be to give the weaker version linked Rotate to red Target Lock.

Thoughts?

(I didn't do TLT, I think it should stay in 1.0)

Add ordinance icon to the autoblaster to remove the range 1 bonus.

Turret+Missile slot seems a good way to go on the Missile Turret. Keeps it off of Kavil. But that also means it can't be equipped to any ship other than the TIE Aggressor (unless I've forgotten about something). That could be fine, though. You could change it to take the Turret Slot and have text that lets it take either the Missile or one other slot, but none of the options I can think of matter. Choosing between taking the Missile or Sensor slot would let VCX and the Havoc take it, but do either of those need this? Nah. I'm of the opinion to keep it for just the TIE Aggressor.

8 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

Agree mostly.

Tractor was bull**** anyhow. Ketsu was a massive bully. Quadjumpers were terribly unfun to play against when they were down at 28 points.

Agreed on Ketsu.

Have not seen any Quadjumpers since the tractor mechanic nerf.

NPEs are subjective. At least Quadjumpers were slooooow. I find Discord missiles at least as oppressive: 5 straight or blue(!) 4 straight, than calculate, alternatively barrel roll, followed by red calculate. And, though stressed in the 2nd case, a discord missile still can be launched with a 3 bank or 3 straight. That is a hilarious distance and makes it very difficult to avoid for less maneuverable ships.

2 hours ago, Managarmr said:

Agreed on Ketsu.

Have not seen any Quadjumpers since the tractor mechanic nerf.

NPEs are subjective. At least Quadjumpers were slooooow. I find Discord missiles at least as oppressive: 5 straight or blue(!) 4 straight, than calculate, alternatively barrel roll, followed by red calculate. And, though stressed in the 2nd case, a discord missile still can be launched with a 3 bank or 3 straight. That is a hilarious distance and makes it very difficult to avoid for less maneuverable ships.

Hey, a friend of mine thinks Discord Missiles are worse than Ghost/Fenn was. I can't quite go that far, but Discords are kinda BS.

//

Back to Quads... I don't know if they're rare because they're actually bad, or because people are afraid to experiment with them. They got nerfed way back when in the first adjustment (28 to 32), and although that got rolled back to 30 with the recent adjustment, well, tractor was nerfed, so the presumption is probably "these are still bad." I strongly think that a lot of listbuilding choices are often pretty separate from

It's like, Tractor Scyks are possibly the best Scyk, and they're only just now after the tractor nerf starting to see play. Probably because, in a lot of ways, tractor isn't all that bad. The nerf was correctly brutal against Nantex, since they could use their Ensnare not only to toss people about, but to avoid getting shot at. The nerf means that's no longer the case. However, someone like a Scyk is only tractoring at Init 1, so probably had already been shot at.

Someone like a Quadjumper, while they aren't quite as potent at moving someone around, are still really disruptive, and if an opponent rotates before moving, they'll probably wind up pointing away from the Quad anyhow. It wouldn't surprise me if the Tractor nerf didn't hit the Quad that much, same as it didn't hit the Scyk that much.

Maybe there has been significant testing of Quads post-nerf. Or maybe it's a bad idea since Tractor Scyks are about as tough and 2 points cheaper, and the widespread buffs to filler ships make them comparatively worse in terms of raw joust value.

Also just seems possible they're maybe a hidden gem.

6 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Hey, a friend of mine thinks Discord Missiles are worse than Ghost/Fenn was. I can't quite go that far, but Discords are kinda BS.

//

Back to Quads... I don't know if they're rare because they're actually bad, or because people are afraid to experiment with them. They got nerfed way back when in the first adjustment (28 to 32), and although that got rolled back to 30 with the recent adjustment, well, tractor was nerfed, so the presumption is probably "these are still bad." I strongly think that a lot of listbuilding choices are often pretty separate from

It's like, Tractor Scyks are possibly the best Scyk, and they're only just now after the tractor nerf starting to see play. Probably because, in a lot of ways, tractor isn't all that bad. The nerf was correctly brutal against Nantex, since they could use their Ensnare not only to toss people about, but to avoid getting shot at. The nerf means that's no longer the case. However, someone like a Scyk is only tractoring at Init 1, so probably had already been shot at.

Someone like a Quadjumper, while they aren't quite as potent at moving someone around, are still really disruptive, and if an opponent rotates before moving, they'll probably wind up pointing away from the Quad anyhow. It wouldn't surprise me if the Tractor nerf didn't hit the Quad that much, same as it didn't hit the Scyk that much.

Maybe there has been significant testing of Quads post-nerf. Or maybe it's a bad idea since Tractor Scyks are about as tough and 2 points cheaper, and the widespread buffs to filler ships make them comparatively worse in terms of raw joust value.

Also just seems possible they're maybe a hidden gem.

There also seems to be a bit of a prevalent aversion in the X-Wing community against playing things, other then easy mods arc dodgers, that are commonly considered NPE, correctly or not. This might be a factor in the lack of Quads being seen. Personally I find PA Quads to be fun, if expensive and probably crap meta wise, knife fighters.

22 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

There also seems to be a bit of a prevalent aversion in the X-Wing community against playing things, other then easy mods arc dodgers, that are commonly considered NPE, correctly or not. This might be a factor in the lack of Quads being seen. Personally I find PA Quads to be fun, if expensive and probably crap meta wise, knife fighters.

PA does seem pricey, particularly with Contraband Cybernetics down to 2 points these days. I mean, how many times is a 5-hull ship going to use it anyhow?

I'm sure there's a bunch of ways to build a list. 3 Quads, Ion Drea, 2 Autoblasters Scyks? 2 Quads, Ion Drea, 2 Kihraxzes (everyone in the list with CC?).

1 minute ago, theBitterFig said:

PA does seem pricey, particularly with Contraband Cybernetics down to 2 points these days. I mean, how many times is a 5-hull ship going to use it anyhow?

I'm sure there's a bunch of ways to build a list. 3 Quads, Ion Drea, 2 Autoblasters Scyks? 2 Quads, Ion Drea, 2 Kihraxzes (everyone in the list with CC?).

I've actually run them with both PA and Contra. It was fun to fly, even if I borked up the positioning and activation order a time or two. 😄

Hrm, I have some thoughts to dump (in an unorganized fashion), but before anyone tells me I'm terrible, my post has two required buy-ins:

1. 1E's TLT would objectively be too powerful for 2E's meta and ship design
2. 1E's TLT was generally too powerful for 1E's meta and ship design

If we don't agree on those, then I'm not surprised you're incensed.

@ImperialAce95: At least at first blush, I like the Missile Turret. Limited use because of charges and requiring a lock. Its slots narrow it to only certain ships (currently the TIE/ag) and avoids the abusers. Honestly that feels like an appropriate design to me, more so than just "have a 3-dice turret". It's like a more limited and balanced Barrage Rockets: lock instead of focus, only four uses and no reloading so no running away all game trying to snipe and strafe, but it's a 3-dice attack for the ship so it's solid value added.

In addition to the mandatory ordnance icon for Autoblaster Turret, I might limit it further to 2 charges and to range 1 only. The charges are not spent to fire, they're spent to bypass defense with crits while you're outside of the target's front arc. I dunno... I'm feel'n cagey about this one for some reason. Might be nothing, but Autoblaster Cannon feels a lot better designed & balanced; the fact that it cannot strafe, fire after passing (without a k-turn etc), or be used while running away counts for a lot. Once you make it turreted... Yea, the feeling of doom isn't going away, kill it with fire. 🔥

So a number of interesting features and limiters could be applied to turrets to make them interesting but also hopefully less oppressive.

If you want something highly accurate, I'd advise against two attacks for the excellent reasons above. Instead just make it a 3-dice range 2-3 turret, single attack, and it cannot be used as a bonus attack. Use that as our base.

• Possibly a 3-dice turret that can only deal 1 damage. Either way, it doesn't shoot twice.
• Again, compliments to the Missile Turret; that's a good approach.
• Or a 2-dice turret that can spend a charge to reroll a die or several to grant it some initial accuracy, but its charges cannot be recovered and there's only 2 or so of them. So as it heats up in combat, it stops being as useful.
• Or your accurate turret has X charges, and only rolls 1 die naturally. You can spend up to 2 charges to roll that many more dice. Charges recover one at a time. But on reflection, since this encourages running away, I'd run away from the idea. It might be better to just have 4 - 6 charges that don't recover.
• Another accuracy thought, if your goal is to be better against aces: 3-dice attack that can only deal 1 total damage if it hits, and if the opponent rolls more green dice than your red, the defender's focus results cannot be modified. But that kill it with fire feeling is returning...

The opposite direction:

If instead you want an inaccurate, high damage turret that sucks against evasive fighters but slaughters elephants, Turbolaser Battery is a fantastic design for that. Adding a hit result if the attack hits is a viable option, perhaps also converting crits to hits. In standard play though, that weapon may not be a very welcome addition. Like with autoblaster turret, I immediately feel dread at the idea. This turret would pick apart rebel beef and thicc swarms pretty well, but it also murders a lot of the ships that are already struggling by not being aces (anything not 3-agility). Again, maybe kill this with fire.

Limiters:

High cost is one way to keep a turret from being spammed, but so is Limited (one or two dots). That unfortunately does nothing to the individual pilots that could abuse it with special abilities or simply running away. And a high cost is such a blunt instrument, severely limiting who could enjoy it with any success, if anyone.

I once had a homebrew conversation in 1E days about someone's idea for a weapon that simply ignores shields. That triggered a giant nope response from me... it'd murder the game's balance. They were upset that I hadn't even heard the cost before I balked, but I sincerely believed no cost would be appropriate. It's either costed too expensive to use unless one pilot can figure out a combo, and even then balancing that one pilot is tricky... or it's too cheap and it demolishes the meta and ruins the lives of all the ships in the game that rely on shields in any notable capacity. Cost is just too blunt an instrument; you have to balance with lots of tools.

A serious problem is always pilots like Kavil that could abuse whatever we give them; these special cases are frequently the reason we can't have nice things. I'm in favor of the points PDF just listing banned cards under those pilots, but I suspect that would trigger FFG's safe word.

Explicitly banning rolling additional dice or modifying dice is a strong hammer that could be employed if needed. Kavil, various sources of free dice mods (e.g. Matchstick, force, free mods from allies), etc can all be brought into line with this. You'd be left with a raw attack that cannot be modded though, unless your weapon provided a specific mod method (e.g. for a 3-dice turret "You may cancel a die result. If you do, you may either reroll any number of dice or convert one focus to a hit; this attack cannot be modified with any other effect. This weapon cannot be used as a bonus attack."). It's an aggressive nuke and may not solve all problems, but it's good to have it in standby when your nifty weapon idea cannot be brought into line any other way.

Requiring the attacker to spend their focus or lock simply to fire is also an interesting option, e.g. 1E's blaster turret. It requires the resource but also spends your dice mod source. Maybe there are cases where it's appropriate to include 1 or 2 charges that can be spent instead of the focus or lock, but they don't recharge, so you've only got a mulligan or two on that token requirement.

The missile turret above requiring both a lock and spending a charge is a decent combination, which gets better by limiting its ship choices. Again, we want to avoid games going to time because ships are encouraged toward infinite strafing and running away; the game is plagued with enough of that.

Welp. That's probably enough half-baked thoughts to get me into serious trouble.

I love the ideas here! I defiantly think that we need more turret options in 2.0. Here is my take on what a 2.0 TLT could look like. I would love any feedback that you would have.

15 minutes ago, Gupa-nupa said:

I love the ideas here! I defiantly think that we need more turret options in 2.0. Here is my take on what a 2.0 TLT could look like. I would love any feedback that you would have.

IMO that one's terrifyingly powerful for the reasons listed in posts above. You don't need lock/focus to hit with TLT, relying on sheer volume of attacks and dice to get 1 or 2 damage in a turn. But you could still spend all your tokens on the first attack and be fine, and jam tokens are shed at end of round. Deplete might be better but would still have all the problems of a double-attacking long-range turret.

25 minutes ago, Gupa-nupa said:

I love the ideas here! I defiantly think that we need more turret options in 2.0. Here is my take on what a 2.0 TLT could look like. I would love any feedback that you would have.

I get that you're trying to make sure that the second shot is unmodded but Drea exists and your hypothetical is still nearly guaranteed damage against 0-2 green dice ships even unmodded, so no thanks.

Maybe I missed your idea earlier (I just kind of skimmed pages 3/4), but how would you solve the issue?

That is a good point with Drea, I don't really play scum so I was unaware of that mechanic

Always worth playing around in the damage calculator. It's pretty simple to model a TLT as two attacks from Ion weapons. In this case, it's best to use two different ships (since one attack cannot have a token), but the multi-preset calculator ( http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi_preset/ ) allows for bonus attacks.

• Regular 3 dice vs 3 focused http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=gwAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MQgAAAAAAAAA
• Jam TLT vs 3 focused http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=gwAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MQgAAIAAAAAA&a2=MQAAAIAAAAAA

Did you know that against a focused 2 dice defender, or a 3 dice defender with or without focus, that this version of a TLT you've proposed does more damage than a straight 3 dice attack?

If you didn't know that this does more damage than a normal attack, this is the perfect illustration of why TLT is bad for the game. Not saying there shouldn't be more turrets (whether just for variety, or to increase power levels), but they CERTAINLY shouldn't be TLT. The split up attacks really obscure how much damage the weapon is actually doing. It would be much better for the game for there to be a no-frills 3 attack dice turret, since that's something everyone who plays the game can instantly understand, judge it's effectiveness, and have a more accurate understanding about how much it should cost.

Now, if you want to make the case that there should be 3 attack dice turrets, go ahead. Folks will agree or disagree. But you'll all be on the same page, since you all know how effective the attacks are.

Oh wow! I had no idea that was what I had created! I really like that site, I'll defiantly have to spend some time looking around there. In the future I will run my ideas by the math 😉

Whatever TLT 2.0 ends up becoming, it cannot be just better than Dorsal Turret or Ion Canon Turret in all situations, because we would go back to the point that it would be the only turret worth taking. The game would devolve again into a bunch of the cheapest TLT carriers carrying TLTs.

If you make TLT a plain 3 dice 1-2 range turret, even if more expensive in points, who would ever take Dorsal?
You can't either make it a 2 dice 2-3 range turret, because in that case it remains being as bad as the current K-wing peashooter.

A double arc 2 dice 2-3 peashooter? Bring enough of them to the table so that they add up? Nah. Again, it would be a straight upgrade from Dorsal, and again it would devolve into a mass of the cheapest TLT carriers.

Perhaps we are looking at it wrong. Did Y-wings, the Ghost, HWK, etc really ever equip twin laser turrets in the lore? Not really. The K-wing, and the TIE Aggressor did have two turrets.
Perhaps the new incarnation of TLT could be something akin to what Linked Battery was in 1.0 for double cannon ships, but for double turret ships.
Now, passive mods are bad, because they are autoinclude and poison. But what about:

Twin Laser Turret
(turret upgrade)
When attacking with a (turret arc) weapon, if either you or the defender revealed a straight maneuver this round, you may assign one strain token to the defender.

That is, the upgrade itself isn't an attack, but a modifier for turret attacks. Now give one turret slot to the K-wing (so that it has a slot and a turret primary), and another to the TIE Aggressor (so that it ends up with two turret slots), and other ships that had two turrets in the lore (not to the Decimator, or others that don't need it).

The strain token lowers the defense of the defender, making more likely to land a hit with a 2 dice peashooter, without going overboard with damage. Also, you need to do straights to get that effect, making you more predictable, and giving a chance to the defender to counterplay it (you are easier to arcdodge).

4 hours ago, Azrapse said:

You can't either make it a 2 dice 2-3 range turret, because in that case it remains being as bad as the current K-wing peashooter.

Why not?

This really feels perfect to me, since adding turrets, IMHO, ought to be about adding options and enabling different styles rather than ramping up power level. Sure, K-Wings aren't great. But it might be better for a TIE Aggressor to have a 2-3 peashooter rather than a 1-2 peashooter. Or rather, it's a better fit with how someone wants to play. Even if it isn't more powerful, it's an additional play style and a different way to Aggressor.

4 hours ago, Azrapse said:

A double arc 2 dice 2-3 peashooter? Bring enough of them to the table so that they add up? Nah. Again, it would be a straight upgrade from Dorsal, and again it would devolve into a mass of the cheapest TLT carriers.

It's better but not that much better than a single arc 2 dice 2-3 weapon. You gain action efficiency in having to rotate less, but not absurdly so. Whether or not it's a "straight upgrade" over Dorsal is a lot less clear. Losing Range 1 isn't nothing, and such a weapon would probably have a higher cost.

It's probably best to just have a single arc one, if only because double-end small-base turret widgets don't exist yet, but single vs double isn't a huge balance issue.

Since we were on the subject of multiple attacks, I was going to ask about importing the TIE/D title. But I figured I'd make my own thread instead of hijacking this one.

Link for those interested.

What about this:

Double Turret Arc, range 2-3

Medium/Large based ships only

Adds rotate action

While you perform this attack, if you roll one or more (Crit) results, change them to blanks. If you change one or more results in this manner, you may preform a bonus attack with this turret.

I had a card made up, but it's file size is too big.... 😢

I considered it adding a white rotate action but in the end I made it red, because you can use VTG or the like. Let me know if I've unintentionally made another OP upgrade....