Honestly, I think I would drop the reroll all together. Make it a 2 die turret range 2-3. Add in a charge based bonus attack for the "twin." Two charges recurring, spend two charges to perform a bonus attack from this turret, allowing the double tap only every other turn. Maybe have it take up a turret slot and a gunner slot to future proof. Range bonuses and overall lack of free mods would hopefully tones this sucker down. Dorsal is rarely taken because of the 2 die attack rarely doing damage, so I don't think it would be OP.

For a Synced Turret, keep the required lock to fire from 1st., but allow a single reroll FCS style. Might be a problem with the VCX or a Lok w/title as those could have the sensor FCS and the Sync reroll. But then again, Matchstick isn't exactly blowing up the meta with his multiple "free" rerolls, so maybe it wouldn't be OP.

14 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

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

http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=ggAAAAAAAAAA&a1=IQgAAEAAAAAA

2 red with focus and single die reroll vs 2 green with focus: Roughly 53% chance to get 1 or more hits (subbing pred in for the single re-roll), 47% chance to miss completely.

Just now, Hiemfire said:

Do you mean to get a single hit? This shows a roughly 60% wiff (no hits or crits) chance of 2 red with focus vs 2 green with focus.

http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=ggAAAAAAAAAA&a1=IQgAAAAAAAAA

At which point it gets a second attack right? That's been part of this for a while, and why a passive reroll is so insanely powerful.

9 minutes ago, Do I need a Username said:

At which point it gets a second attack right? That's been part of this for a while, and why a passive reroll is so insanely powerful.

No, the single die reroll is in place of the second attack and the cancel results that 1.0 TLT had. I'd forgotten the reroll when I plugged the 2 red vs 2 green both with focus. recalc linked below.

11 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=ggAAAAAAAAAA&a1=IQgAAEAAAAAA

2 red with focus and single die reroll vs 2 green with focus: Roughly 53% chance to get 1 or more hits (subbing pred in for the single re-roll), 47% chance to miss completely.

If you meant adding in the TLT attack as the Vet Tur Gunner's bonus attack then you're looking at that Y-Wing being 47 pts minimum with this hypothetical TLT being 7 pts.

Giving it the HLC's change all crit results to hit results would keep the old "hit result only" theme that TLT had as well.

5 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

No, the single die reroll is in place of the second attack that 1.0 TLT added. I'd forgotten the reroll when I plugged the 2 red vs 2 green both with focus.

This was the part I missed. That's still a very high hit chance, and adding a passive reroll shouldn't be taken, especially at long range. This is all pretty much ignoring the massive increase in arc coverage granted by a range 2-3 turret rather than a range 1-2 turret.

AND it's still comically better than pretty much every 2 die native turret in the game.

1 minute ago, Do I need a Username said:

This was the part I missed. That's still a very high hit chance, and adding a passive reroll shouldn't be taken, especially at long range. This is all pretty much ignoring the massive increase in arc coverage granted by a range 2-3 turret rather than a range 1-2 turret.

And people rant about games often going to time... 😒

For completeness vs 3 green with a focus:

27% chance for 1 or more hits, 73% chance to wiff.

http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=gwAAAAAAAAAA&a1=IQgAAEAAAAAA

Just now, Hiemfire said:

And people rant about games often going to time... 😒

For completeness vs 3 green with a focus:

27% chance for 1 or more hits, 73% chance to wiff.

http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=gwAAAAAAAAAA&a1=IQgAAEAAAAAA

This would lead to more going to time, not less imo, as ships with it would rarely get close to try and deal big damage instead trying to just stay away and deal damage in small chunks. If you want fewer games to go to time, might I suggest harpoon missiles and guidance chips?

Its also is pretty good vs. Low agility ships, and makes high agility ships even stronger than before.

2 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

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.

Y-Wing is also a small-base, and large medium base can be unwieldy.

Anyhow, less toxic than 1e TLT is a pretty low bar to clear. Again, I just thing we'd be fine without adding extra passive mods which don't have any opportunity cost.

What about a cost for the reroll? Like spending a shield or maybe green tokens? Pulling energy from shields to get more power from the weapon. Doesn't quite feel like the same thing thematically anymore, though. Yeah, maybe the reroll is a dead-end.

The more I think about this, the more it makes sense that we've only got the two turret upgrades so far.

3 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

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.

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

Yeah, you're right on the blaster turret. While this feels like a somewhat silly idea, what if it had text that didn't allow it to be used in a bonus attack?

What you've got for autoblaster seems fine to me. Are you meaning that in addition to the text from the autoblaster cannon, or no?

3 minutes ago, CaptainJaguarShark said:

What you've got for autoblaster seems fine to me. Are you meaning that in addition to the text from the autoblaster cannon, or no?

Sort of. I'm thinking drop the bullseye ability (so no inherent extra attack dice either, which you speculated as probable) but retain the crit result protection when outside of the target's front arc.

1 hour ago, 5050Saint said:

Honestly, I think I would drop the reroll all together. Make it a 2 die turret range 2-3. Add in a charge based bonus attack for the "twin." Two charges recurring, spend two charges to perform a bonus attack from this turret, allowing the double tap only every other turn. Maybe have it take up a turret slot and a gunner slot to future proof. Range bonuses and overall lack of free mods would hopefully tones this sucker down. Dorsal is rarely taken because of the 2 die attack rarely doing damage, so I don't think it would be OP.

This all seems pretty reasonable. Could alternatively have text that doesn't allow a bonus attack except from the built in method, but maybe too much work, taking the gunner is probably the easier method.

24 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Y-Wing is also a small-base, and large base can be unwieldy.

Probably a bit of isolation rust clogging the memory, but K-Wings are medium base.

25 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

Anyhow, less toxic than 1e TLT is a pretty low bar to clear. Again, I just thing we'd be fine without adding extra passive mods which don't have any opportunity cost.

It's weaker than a straight (no reroll) 3 red with focus by a fair bit:

Roughly 70% chance for 1 or more hits vs 2 green with focus

http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=ggAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MQgAAAAAAAAA

Roughly 45% for 1 or more hits vs 3 green with focus

http://xwing.gateofstorms.net/2/multi/?d=gwAAAAAAAAAA&a1=MQgAAAAAAAAA

52 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Probably a bit of isolation rust clogging the memory, but K-Wings are medium base.

Typo on Medium/Large. Still can get unwieldy.

52 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

It's weaker than a straight (no reroll) 3 red with focus by a fair bit:

Point being? My point is that it's a fair bit better than a straight no-reroll 2 red attack. That's my point.

I don't care that it's *less* powerful than some alternative. I haven't seen a good justification on why it should be *more* powerful than a baseline 2 dice.

I mean, it's entirely possible that the answer is "we want power creep." I think that's at the core of what folks who want 2e TLT are looking for. I just prefer not to power creep, that's all.

7 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I mean, it's entirely possible that the answer is "we want power creep." I think that's at the core of what folks who want 2e TLT are looking for. I just prefer not to power creep, that's all.

A fair concern. For my part I was looking at a possible way for it to be brought back in without being too potent in response to those who are pushing for it to return (as you've similarly done in the past with your twin arc, retain double tap but cannot fire twice into the same arc used previously concept). Thus the limit to 2 dice, single reroll instead of doubletap, not permitting it to fire w/n range 1 baseline, still granting the extra green from range 3 and possibly having the HLC's convert uncanceled crit results to hit results ( I think I posted that, may have been cut out in a previous edit). It doesn't have to be cheap either. @Do I need a Username 's concern about how much area the range 3 band covers is also fair. 🙂

19 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

A fair concern. For my part I was looking at a possible way for it to be brought back in without being too potent in response to those who are pushing for it to return (as you've similarly done in the past with your twin arc, retain double tap but cannot fire twice into the same arc used previously concept). Thus the limit to 2 dice, single reroll instead of doubletap, not permitting it to fire w/n range 1 baseline, still granting the extra green from range 3 and possibly having the HLC's convert uncanceled crit results to hit results ( I think I posted that, may have been cut out in a previous edit). It doesn't have to be cheap either. @Do I need a Username 's concern about how much area the range 3 band covers is also fair. 🙂

I'd rather just keep it simple. Vanilla 2 dice, range 2-3, nothing fancy.

If folks feel that's insufficient, it'd be better to create something like a Light Turret Gunner . Text like "While you perform a {turret symbol} attack, if there are have 2 or fewer attack dice, you may reroll 1 blank result." Adding passive mods to a turret starts to feel problematic once we get into VTG and other means of getting bonus attacks. Putting those mods on a gunner seems more reasonable, and just allows more control over each part of the whole. Plus, if we accept that folks want K-Wing buffs, this gets there without adding a turret upgrade to the ship.

Personally, I probably wouldn't add such a gunner, but I'd still rather have the two components separately. In general, however, there might be room for cards that, like TV-94, only buff attacks that are small enough.

While we're throwing out turret-related ideas:

I had a new thought for "Gyroscopic Stabilizers" or such. Modification, maybe 3 points. "After you fully execute a Red maneuver, you may rotate your {arc indicator symbol}." Taking flip moves on turret ships often feels like it extra sucks, so having a tool to get a non-action rotate on completed Red moves would be an interesting little upgrade and bit of efficiency.

9 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

I'd rather just keep it simple. Vanilla 2 dice, range 2-3, nothing fancy.

Hm, I like this. 5 or 6 points as a starting cost feels about right to me for it.

9 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

If folks feel that's insufficient, it'd be better to create something like a Light Turret Gunner . Text like "While you perform a {turret symbol} attack, if there are have 2 or fewer attack dice, you may reroll 1 blank result." Adding passive mods to a turret starts to feel problematic once we get into VTG and other means of getting bonus attacks. Putting those mods on a gunner seems more reasonable, and just allows more control over each part of the whole. Plus, if we accept that folks want K-Wing buffs, this gets there without adding a turret upgrade to the ship.

I like this too, thinking 4 or 5 points to start out making it 9-11 points for the combo (LTG+TLT hypotheticals) and giving a reasonable boost for allot of the turret platforms.

6 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

While we're throwing out turret-related ideas:

I had a new thought for "Gyroscopic Stabilizers" or such. Modification, maybe 3 points. "After you fully execute a Red maneuver, you may rotate your {arc indicator symbol}." Taking flip moves on turret ships often feels like it extra sucks, so having a tool to get a non-action rotate on completed Red moves would be an interesting little upgrade and bit of efficiency.

I like this also, though 3 points for a soft Luke/Agile Gunner might be a little cheap.

🙂

On 5/19/2020 at 6:34 PM, theBitterFig said:

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

TLT just gave arc dodgers and fat ships the Y-wing experience.

Y'all just fear equity

1 hour ago, Vontoothskie said:

TLT just gave arc dodgers and fat ships the Y-wing experience.

Y'all just fear equity

But it also gave Y-Wings (and pretty much every 1 or 2 defense die ship) a VCX/Decimator experience. And therein, lies the problem.

51 minutes ago, 5050Saint said:

But it also gave Y-Wings (and pretty much every 1 or 2 defense die ship) a VCX/Decimator experience. And therein, lies the problem.

The Decimator experience is dying a bumper car hero... we should all be so lucky

2 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

Y'all just fear equity

Naw. TLT is uniquely bad . It'd be better for the game to get a straight 3-dice turret upgrade option.

Having attacks capped at 1 damage is... kind of irrelevant? Ion Cannon Scyks are really good. They're probably better than TIE Interceptors or Strikers for the same 31 points, with a slightly better defensive statline, but no access to extra movement actions. The arguments for TLT based around "well, it only does one damage" are entirely wrong since often that first damage is the only one that matters, and wind up being either accidentally or intentionally dishonest.

The nature of how TLT works obscures it, and would continue to do so even if the bonus attack was only on a miss.

If folks want a 3-dice turret, argue for a 3-dice turret. That's something everyone understand.

1 minute ago, theBitterFig said:

Naw. TLT is uniquely bad. It'd be better for the game to get a straight 3-dice turret upgrade option.

Having attacks capped at 1 damage is... kind of irrelevant? Ion Cannon Scyks are really good. They're probably better than TIE Interceptors or Strikers for the same 31 points, with a slightly better defensive statline, but no access to extra movement actions. The arguments for TLT based around "well, it only does one damage" are entirely wrong since often that first damage is the only one that matters, and wind up being either accidentally or intentionally dishonest.

The nature of how TLT works obscures it, and would continue to do so even if the bonus attack was only on a miss.

If folks want a 3-dice turret, argue for a 3-dice turret. That's something everyone understand.

I think you missed the joke. I agree TLT was busted. but so is infinite positioning arc dodgers or half the other things people love to fly.

TLT made everyone have the same NPE sadness equally regardless of what they flew... you could say it brought balance to the force. at present that sadness is simply reserved for anyone foolish enough to not fly the meta.

that said TLT as a unique upgrade that cost 20 points would be fine.

12 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

If folks want a 3-dice turret, argue for a 3-dice turret. That's something everyone understand.

It better that TLT. I would want it, but Kavil and Broadside (and probably Matchstick at that point) make me not want a 3 die turret. We could price those pilots much higher, but then that would shoehorn them into taking that turret to be effective. There would need to be a limiter for this kind of turret as well.

Just now, Vontoothskie said:

I think you missed the joke.

Sure, because it wasn't written like a joke.

1 minute ago, Vontoothskie said:

TLT made everyone have the same NPE sadness equally regardless of what they flew... you could say it brought balance to the force.

Kinda like how Anakin as the chosen one brought balance to the force by ensuring the rise of the Empire. 😄

1 minute ago, 5050Saint said:

It better that TLT. I would want it, but Kavil and Broadside (and probably Matchstick at that point) make me not want a 3 die turret. We could price those pilots much higher, but then that would shoehorn them into taking that turret to be effective. There would need to be a limiter for this kind of turret as well.

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). Having a limit of some kind on a 3-dice turret could be useful, but that also reintroduces a tonne of distortion, and all of a sudden the main benefit of the vanilla 3-dice turret is lost. The big thing about a 3-dice turret is we all understand what it ought to cost.

It'd also be a great upgrade to introduce with a limited banlist, whereby it'd be banned on Kavil (maybe the others, but Broadside is Extra-Advanced Optics, and Matchstick is inverted Scurrg, so not so dire). 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.