11 hours ago, svelok said:

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

I also want to emphasize that if your only experience with Falcons is in Extended, they are a completely different creature in Hyperspace. Borderline a different ship altogether.

Hyper Han doesn't run many or any upgrades and absolutely depends on getting consistent range 1 shots to do consistent damage. Relying on range 1 means you're more blockable, arc-dodgeable (if moving last - if first, you can still land in a place that forces a boost or rotate, taking away the shot's mod), and generally more interactive with the opponent in general. That's how turrets should be; which is the opposite of what consistent damage out the side arcs at range 2-3 would encourage.

Extended Han obviously also wants 4 dice when possible, but access to trick shot, force crew, and r2 crew completely changes how the ship behaves. It's insane how much a few upgrades transforms Han from interactive to busted.

If TLT came back with a bow tie arc, regardless of its capability, it should take up a turret and a gunner slot. The double slot requirement should be true for any bow tie arc turrets that get added.

Kavil and Broadside would almost never miss with TLT. No, thank you. Ion Broadside is enough of a pain already.

If we brought in Autoblaster turret, it would still need the range 1 restriction, and would need to be a 1 die turret since it would naturally get a +1 range bonus.

TLT... Now theres a card I have not missed at all. Basically broke 1.0.

23 hours ago, topacesteve said:

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???

nt

Well clearly TLT, no matter how it is brought back or balanced it may be, has too much toxic PTSD behind it to bring it back. I see the 2.0 version already out there in some fashion with veteran tail gunner. A second bonus attack is already in the game and clearly not toxic.

On 5/19/2020 at 2:57 PM, topacesteve said:

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???

I think my eye twitch is coming back...

On 5/19/2020 at 3:12 PM, 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.

This.

Holy **** this.

@Do I need a Username, we all owe you a pint. What's your favorite pour mate?

On 5/20/2020 at 3:22 AM, topacesteve said:

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

Have you flown a HWK-290 with the moldy crow title? It's expensive, but it is certainly a powerful ship. That goes even more so when you heavily modify it with engine and shield upgrades.

8 hours ago, Mep said:

Well clearly TLT, no matter how it is brought back or balanced it may be, has too much toxic PTSD behind it to bring it back. I see the 2.0 version already out there in some fashion with veteran tail gunner. A second bonus attack is already in the game and clearly not toxic.

Available evidence would seem to disagree with you, seeing as VTG has been repeatedly nerfed to the point that it sees little, if any play.

47 minutes ago, DR4CO said:

Available evidence would seem to disagree with you, seeing as VTG has been repeatedly nerfed to the point that it sees little, if any play.

Never said it currently sees a lot of play just that it was put in the game. I also don't think VTG was ever toxic let along got close to TLT levels. A point increase isn't an actually nerf, just a feature in 2.0 for things to get balanced correctly.

This is a good example of the PTSD people have over TLT. Even a hint triggers them to disagree with something that was never said.

9 hours ago, DR4CO said:

Available evidence would seem to disagree with you, seeing as VTG has been repeatedly nerfed to the point that it sees little, if any play.

On a tangential rant, I believe the costing of Veteran Turret Gunner has been handled poorly. In cases where a ship only has a native bow tie turret Veteran Turret Gunner is way over costed. At that point it is essentialy the same thing as the other VTG, Veteran Tail Gunner, but at more than twice the price. Veteran Turret Gunner should have two costs: a higher cost if a ship as a primary \/ arc, and a lower (i.e. the same cost as Veteran Tail Gunner) cost for ships with only a bow tie arc.

Would a 2-die version exactly as it was in 1st edition be acceptable? Probably still too much. I do like the sound of getting the bonus attack only on a miss as some have suggested in the thread, but at 3 dice that's still very efficient. Another way to go is to completely ignore how it functioned in 1st edition and do something new, like a single attack but letting you reroll one die. Thematically, the reroll is the second laser backing up the first.

Blaster Turret (I assume this is what was meant when mentioning the HWK artwork) seems pretty reasonable to add to the game, though there certainly are a few ships that could use this and also get mods from force. Maybe that's fine, though? Is giving up a focus worth an additional die at limited range?

Autoblaster, my first instinct is again around rerolling dice, but then that's just like my TLT idea. We of course have the cannon version already in 2.0 but it relies on the bullseye for one part of its function, which makes that part of it unusable on a turret. It could just have the second part of autoblasters and still be somewhat reasonable, maybe? "During the Neutralize Results step, if you are not in the defender's arc, evade results do not cancel crit results."

10 minutes ago, CaptainJaguarShark said:

Would a 2-die version exactly as it was in 1st edition be acceptable? Probably still too much. I do like the sound of getting the bonus attack only on a miss as some have suggested in the thread, but at 3 dice that's still very efficient. Another way to go is to completely ignore how it functioned in 1st edition and do something new, like a single attack but letting you reroll one die. Thematically, the reroll is the second laser backing up the first.

I still wouldn't like it, for this reason:

On 5/20/2020 at 8:18 AM, svelok said:

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

The current turrets, both upgrade and primary, have managed to avoid that (particularly in hyperspace) by emphasizing close-range engagement.

Plus, pilots like Kavil and Broadside make any turret upgrade you print stronger than you might've bargained for.

11 hours ago, DR4CO said:

Available evidence would seem to disagree with you, seeing as VTG has been repeatedly nerfed to the point that it sees little, if any play.

The other example was dash Roark which got faq'd to oblivion.

10 hours ago, Mep said:

A point increase isn't an actually nerf, just a feature in 2.0 for things to get balanced correctly.

Was it more powerful prior to the increase and less powerful after it?

1 minute ago, svelok said:

Plus, pilots like Kavil and Broadside make any turret upgrade you print stronger than you might've bargained for.

I don't think that's actually a major problem, since Kavil and Broadside could just be nerfed. Throw another 2-5 points on them, and they'd be fine with a stronger turret, I'd suppose.

They're also just Y-Wings. It's not *that* hard to just burn down a Y-Wing. They're low agility and not particularly mobile. If there are a few of them with higher-than-expected punching power, they probably won't be too disruptive.

On 5/19/2020 at 8:49 PM, svelok said:

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

IMHO, the big problem with that is the consistency. Scum 1300s and K-Wings are fine with their 2-dice attacks. I think it'd be kinda fun to side-and-wide on a TIE Aggressor with a vanilla 2-red range 2-3 weapon, since that Roll-Evade really would help them keep distance and stay safe. With their damage output so low, does an opponent really want to commit (and frankly, to commit at all would be to over-commit) to killing them? A pair of them plus two aces would be a list I'd think is kinda sweet.

But the key is that a cheap long-range turret ship can only be doing weak chip damage. You're entirely right that TLT, even on 2 dice, would be too consistent and too strong.

2 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I think it'd be kinda fun to side-and-wide on a TIE Aggressor with a vanilla 2-red range 2-3 weapon, since that Roll-Evade really would help them keep distance and stay safe. With their damage output so low, does an opponent really want to commit (and frankly, to commit at all would be to over-commit) to killing them? A pair of them plus two aces would be a list I'd think is kinda sweet.

I disagree, especially when you're now talking about defensive stacking at range too. It's much more engaging when turrets are encouraged to fly close, like ion turret Y-Wings currently are.

The aggressor theoretically is using its roll -> evade to participate in that close range brawl that the Y-Wing is tanking through. Isn't that a lot more interesting than an aggressor sitting at range 3 doing two banks and evading?

51 minutes ago, CaptainJaguarShark said:

Would a 2-die version exactly as it was in 1st edition be acceptable? Probably still too much. I do like the sound of getting the bonus attack only on a miss as some have suggested in the thread, but at 3 dice that's still very efficient. Another way to go is to completely ignore how it functioned in 1st edition and do something new, like a single attack but letting you reroll one die. Thematically, the reroll is the second laser backing up the first.

Range 2-3, 2 red, allows you to reroll one of the attack dice from its attack. 7 pts would be a good starting point initially I think.

53 minutes ago, CaptainJaguarShark said:

Blaster Turret (I assume this is what was meant when mentioning the HWK artwork) seems pretty reasonable to add to the game, though there certainly are a few ships that could use this and also get mods from force. Maybe that's fine, though? Is giving up a focus worth an additional die at limited range?

I think Vet Tur Loks rolling 4-4 close in doubletaps make this idea doa, even with spending a focus to perform the Blaster Turret's attack.

58 minutes ago, CaptainJaguarShark said:

Autoblaster, my first instinct is again around rerolling dice, but then that's just like my TLT idea. We of course have the cannon version already in 2.0 but it relies on the bullseye for one part of its function, which makes that part of it unusable on a turret. It could just have the second part of autoblasters and still be somewhat reasonable, maybe? "During the Neutralize Results step, if you are not in the defender's arc, evade results do not cancel crit results."

Range 1-2 , 2 red, ord icon (no range bonuses) to mitigate close range broad passes getting too nasty?

13 minutes ago, svelok said:

I disagree, especially when you're now talking about defensive stacking at range too. It's much more engaging when turrets are encouraged to fly close, like ion turret Y-Wings currently are.

The aggressor theoretically is using its roll -> evade to participate in that close range brawl that the Y-Wing is tanking through. Isn't that a lot more interesting than an aggressor sitting at range 3 doing two banks and evading?

Presuming such a turret costs 8 points, you'd have a 34 point ship with 5 health and trying to plink away with range 3, potentially unmodified 2-dice attacks. On a Y-Wing, that'd be 38 points, same as a K-Wing. It can't be strong, but if it's weak enough and expensive enough, I think it'd be nice to have another flavor of turret ship.

I dunno. I just kinda like it. At short range, it's really easy for an Aggressor to get picked to pieces, and I think it'd be fun to have two playstyles. Stronger/cheaper close brawler, or weaker/costlier sniper.

4 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Range 2-3, 2 red, allows you to reroll one of the attack dice from its attack. 7 pts would be a good starting point initially I think.

Cheap passive mods are a bad idea, IMHO.

5 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I dunno. I just kinda like it. At short range, it's really easy for an Aggressor to get picked to pieces, and I think it'd be fun to have two playstyles. Stronger/cheaper close brawler, or weaker/costlier sniper.

Don't think we're going to agree here - I feel, very strongly, that "long range 'sniper' turret platform" is cooler as an idea in theory than it would actually lead to fun, engaging decisions on the table in practice.

15 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Cheap passive mods are a bad idea, IMHO.

7pts for a 2 die attack that never gets the r1 bonus die, grants the r3 bonus die and allows the reroll of a single die from its own attack only isn't exactly cheap. As I said, 7pts initially, they can adjust it up or down as needed. It might end up around 9 or 10 pts because of Vet Tur Kavil in the end but 7 is a good starting point out the gate.

51 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

7pts for a 2 die attack that never gets the r1 bonus die, grants the r3 bonus die and allows the reroll of a single die from its own attack only isn't exactly cheap. As I said, 7pts initially, they can adjust it up or down as needed. It might end up around 9 or 10 pts because of Vet Tur Kavil in the end but 7 is a good starting point out the gate.

Here's what I really don't get: why add the reroll? 37 point Y-Wing with a passive reroll blows the crap out of a K-Wing at 38. There's just no good reason to do it.

Tossing around low-opportunity-cost passive mods is the route of 1e.

I disagree with @svelok about long range plinkers and how fun they could be be, but once you add the consistency of a reroll to it, even I think it'd be a really bad idea.

21 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Here's what I really don't get: why add the reroll? 37 point Y-Wing with a passive reroll blows the crap out of a K-Wing at 38. There's just no good reason to do it.

Tossing around low-opportunity-cost passive mods is the route of 1e.

The K-Wing is a **** of allot more mobile and has access to a far more diverse set of loadouts. A Y-Wing can't go "nope, I'm out" and be on the other side of the board in one phase, a K-Wing can while still leaving a device for the Y-Wing to think about, or zip around behind the Y-Wing and laugh as it doesn't have the turret in the correct arc.

That said, the reroll is there to take the place of the almost guaranteed damage of the 1.0 TLT. While more consistent than just a straight up 2 die, it still gives the opponent a good chance to take no damage.

14 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

That said, the reroll is there to take the place of the almost guaranteed damage of the 1.0 TLT. While more consistent than just a straight up 2 die, it still gives the opponent a good chance to take no damage.

If by good chance you mean 20% vs. 2 dice when both parties have a focus, yeah it's a good chance.