What do you think a fair counter to turrets would be?

[GiraffeandZebra 1,172]

Just. Stop. Complaining. All this forum is anymore is "waaaah, turrets are OP!"

 

DEAL WITH IT.

 

Turrets are a part of the game, like it or not. Can't beat 'em? Join 'em. Absolutely NOTHING is stopping you from playing Rebels.

I would argue that the forums are 1/2 people complaining and 1/2 people who complain about complaining and go about shouting for others to get over it and learn to play.

[GannerRhysode 75]

Killing the ship with the turret.

[Zoccola 468]

Lol I love these threads. Its always people that want to field 4 interceptors with ptl that complain about turrets having no skill. Want to hear something that you are not going to like, flying 4 high ps interceptors with PTL takes no skill. Arc dodging is stupidly easy if you move last and can both barrel roll and boost. 

 

Every thread about turrets essentially is the following, "Ugh I hate turrets. Their no skill ability to fly in a circle takes away from my no skill ability to use two actions a turn to get out of fire lanes." 

 

 

I'm gonna be more serious this post.

 

I've found rexler plus mini swarm quickly eats falcons, first round of shooting strips shields next sees rexler putting crits on the falcon and swarm hopefully finishing it off, if your really lucky you'll remove its green die with a crit leaving it a sitting duck for the mini swarm.

 

This is so true. Brath is bananas against low agility ships. Throw Predator on and watch the hits pile up. Then flip em into crits. One time I turned 4 hits into crits on Chewbaca. The look on my opponent's face was priceless. The crits: Direct Hit, Injured Pilot, Structural Damage and Thrust Control. Chewbaca just keeled over in his chair. The mini swarm just landed 3 more hits on him (one was another crit: Munitions Failure) and he assploded. Seeing 5+ crits sitting on Chewbaca was a beautiful sight.

 

 

TLDR: Stop whining about turrets and learn to fly real squadrons. 

 

Edited for Homonym failure. 

Edited August 6, 2014 by Zoccola

[Knucklesamwich 802]

Decimator will be the imperials answer to turrets.

[Elkerlyc 727]

I'd certainly not mind an upgrade card allowing to reroll one green die if your ship is not in the primary weapon arc.

Sure would make those fickle green dice ( ) slightly less unreliable without breaking the game.

[Slugrage 5,007]

Your ships are ruining my turrets. OP!

[Bohrdumb 767]

Critical Thought.

What expansion did that come with? I can't find it in my collection anywhere! 

[Droofus 321]

Have a ship that says it cannot be targeted by an enemy ship outside of that enemy ship's firing arc.  Problem solved. (?)

 

Let's just uh... make sure that ship ISN'T a Phantom, okay?

[GiraffeandZebra 1,172]

Everybody loves to throw out the strawman of 4X or 3X interceptor builds and then knock it down.  How about one or two interceptors?  I would say 1 is on the fringe of competitive and 2 is not competitive at all.  Even 1 interceptor takes a lot of skill against a turret and you can still get 1-shotted even if you do everything right.  I'd like to field an interceptor or 2 from time to time, but it just doesn't make sense to do so.

 

People shouldn't be expecting to field homogenous squads and have them perform well against everything, but I don't personally see anything wrong with a tweak that would open up lists to include 1 more ship that relies on maneuverability, or that beefs up the one you do field if you fly it well.  I'm all for anything that opens up list-building options.

 

There are several options on this thread that open up interceptors a bit more without going over the top to impossible to hit swarms of arc-dodging ships that are immune to turrets.  Base the "bonus" on skilled flying and planning the way outmaneuver does, make it limited, and I don't see any reason why people should get up in arms about it.

[GiraffeandZebra 1,172]

Lol I love these threads. Its always people that want to field 4 interceptors with ptl that complain about turrets having no skill. Want to hear something that you are not going to like, flying 4 high ps interceptors with PTL takes no skill. Arc dodging is stupidly easy if you move last and can both barrel roll and boost. 

 

Every thread about turrets essentially is the following, "Ugh I hate turrets. Their no skill ability to fly in a circle takes away from my no skill ability to use two actions a turn to get out of fire lanes."  

 

You can't field 4 interceptors that do what you say, but I digress.

 

While I agree that arc-dodging with a high-PS interceptor requires little skill, that only applies to the first dodge.  The mistake most often made is not considering the next turn and your options left after you arc-dodge.  Too often people PtL their movement options away, get pointed a bad direction, or maneuver too close to obstacles and find that on the next turn they can't escape.  Continuously arc-dodging with an interceptor takes quite a lot of skill.

 

Quit painting everyone with the same broad brush.  Not everyone who thinks a tweak is needed thinks we need to be able to field a homogenous squad of interceptors.  Some of us would just like 1 or 2 interceptors to have a tad more options to be competitive against turrets.

[Zoccola 468]

Interceptors are feasible if used as part of a swarm. This list for instance uses two:

 

Howlrunner + Swarm Tactics

Mauler + Swarm Tactics

Alpha Squadron

Alpha Squadron

Academy Tie

Academy Tie

 

Brings a bit more oomph to the Howl swarm and it is a PAIN to fight, as you want to kill Howlrunner, but that means you are ignoring Interceptors. 

[VanorDM 11,599]

You can't field 4 interceptors that do what you say, but I digress.

Do you mean you can't field 4 Interceptors with PTL? Because both Saber and Royal Guard's fit at 100 points with a 3 point EPT.

[Zoccola 468]

 

Lol I love these threads. Its always people that want to field 4 interceptors with ptl that complain about turrets having no skill. Want to hear something that you are not going to like, flying 4 high ps interceptors with PTL takes no skill. Arc dodging is stupidly easy if you move last and can both barrel roll and boost. 

 

Every thread about turrets essentially is the following, "Ugh I hate turrets. Their no skill ability to fly in a circle takes away from my no skill ability to use two actions a turn to get out of fire lanes."  

 

You can't field 4 interceptors that do what you say, but I digress.

 

While I agree that arc-dodging with a high-PS interceptor requires little skill, that only applies to the first dodge.  The mistake most often made is not considering the next turn and your options left after you arc-dodge.  Too often people PtL their movement options away, get pointed a bad direction, or maneuver too close to obstacles and find that on the next turn they can't escape.  Continuously arc-dodging with an interceptor takes quite a lot of skill.

 

Quit painting everyone with the same broad brush.  Not everyone who thinks a tweak is needed thinks we need to be able to field a homogenous squad of interceptors.  Some of us would just like 1 or 2 interceptors to have a tad more options to be competitive against turrets.

 

 

4x Royal Guards + PTL. While not the highest of PSes, thats enough to get the jump on the majority of builds. Before you argue further, according to MajorJuggler`s stats http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/105107-2014-regionals-results/page-44#entry1184894 compiled from the Regional Results where Wave 4 was legal, the mean PS was 5.28, with PS6 outright beating 62.92% of ships. 

 

Thats enough for me to say 4 RGs + PTL to make the quintessential dodgy Interceptor build.

[Rakky Wistol 2,903]

Wow folks. Ragey much this morning?

My primary beef with turrets vs. interceptors (and now phantoms but we'll get to that) is that high mobility ships paid just as much for thier ability to be huper mobilie as a turret capable ship paid for a turret. Difference being that one completely negates points your opponents paid while the other does not.

And while most point immediately to outmaneuver, they overlook that outmaneuver punishes a ships weakness that they didn't pay anything for while the turret ship negates the strength the ship is paying a premium for on the other side. And that it shares a point cost and slot cost with PTL.

The bigger problem is we now have the phantom. Anything that doesn't come with a "this ship only" qualifier helps the phantom more than the interceptor since the phantom is already a meta changer and has so many more configuration options (well... Besides the mod slot). The phantom prescence is going to make good EPTs, systems, and crew that really do anything vs. turrets a really hard sell. Couple that with interceptors still being pretty locked into PTL (wasn't it claimed "to be over" a few months ago?) already expensive, and pretty locked into a hull mod it's just...sad.

Interceptors are great ships and perform well enough as a 1-2 of (I've been saying that forever too). It's just sad that they have to be able to perform 3 actions a round just to compete (soontir, Turr, Jax imposes multiple negative actions by existing) or be an extra point or two efficient (RGP).

So yes, I think there can be more anti-turret cards released. How do you get them to non-phantoms without making the phantom even better?

Modification: forward plating- when declared the target of an attack by a 360 attack and you have that ship in your front firing arc, you gain an evade token (ceptors have 2 mod slots, phantoms would have to give up ACD, Kir would see play as a bonus!)

Pilot ability: when attacked by a 360 att, that ship rolls 1 less attack dice.

Modification: anti-targeting computer- you gain +2AG at range 3, you grant no bonus to attacks at range 1 if not in the attackers front arc.

Modification: Variable targeting computer- during the reveal phase choose range 2 or range 3. You gain +1att at that range but not at range 1.

Perfect? No. Broken? No. Improves the phantom? No. Rewards maneuverability and placement? Yes.

[VanorDM 11,599]

So yes, I think there can be more anti-turret cards released.

As a fan of the Ion Turret Y-Wing I agree. What and how is of course a question but I do think there could be more anti-turret cards.

How do you get them to non-phantoms without making the phantom even better?

Any time you make it a modification you make it questionable on a Phantom. If they can't take ACD then it's a pretty tough decision.

[Rakky Wistol 2,903]

Exactly. It just so happens interceptors can take 2. Makes them pricier but if its so specific a mod then it's shouldn't cost much. And spending another 1-2pts to shore up your biggest weakness is a bargin in this game.

[Sithborg 11,513]

So, how does that explain the Alphas used before Wave 4. I don't think that squad necessarily died, it's just the huge overreaction to the Phantom.

[Nataris 259]

Outmaneuver is over rated in this topic. 1 ship with outmaneuver isnt going to scare a falcon. Unless you cover your entire squad with the upgrade it is not going to take down a super falcon.

Falcons and turrets needs a straight up hard counter in the form of a ship. Not a swarm, not an upgrade card. If a turret or falcon can straight up hard counter squints, phantoms and any maneuver based SHIP, then the same should be done for falcons. You shouldn't be forced to bring 70pts worth of swarm just to counter a single ship.

[Hobojebus 11,341]

Okay how's this for an idea, when ioned turrets may only fire from forward arc.

[VanorDM 11,599]

Okay how's this for an idea, when ioned turrets may only fire from forward arc.

That's ok, but the Imperials suffer from Ion's much more then the Rebellion does, and Interceptors have no way of ionizing a ship. So this wouldn't help them much.

Not that Interceptors are the only thing that have issues with turrets... But they suffer more then most other ships do, other then A-Wings.

[markcsoul 2,122]

I know it will never happen, but which would you prefer to make falcon turrets more like the equivalent blaster turrets that ywings and hwks can take?

 

1) Make it range 1-2 on all attacks outside the primary firing arc (maybe give it a rear firing arc as well like the firespray as a compromise, so front and rear attacks go range 1-3, side attacks go range 1-2).

 

2) Require a focus to fire outside the primary arc like the blaster turret does.

[Sithborg 11,513]

Except, evidence shows that turrets primaries are NOT a hard counter. Strong against them, yes. In fact, the only real hard counter we have in this game is Blount vs Stealth Device.

 

And considering how quickly Vader was able to strip Chewie of his shields, one ship with Outmaneuver may be all you need.

[VanorDM 11,599]

but which would you prefer to make falcon turrets more like the equivalent blaster turrets that ywings and hwks can take?

I'd prefer that they put in a anti-turret card, because doing so would be a all around better method. Changing the YT at this point is just too heavy handed.

[GiraffeandZebra 1,172]

You can't field 4 interceptors that do what you say, but I digress.

Do you mean you can't field 4 Interceptors with PTL? Because both Saber and Royal Guard's fit at 100 points with a 3 point EPT.

To be precise, I was responding to someone who said 4 interceptors, with 2 actions each, that move last. Royal Guard does not do this. My point being that you can basically only have 2 of the 3 - move last, have 2 actions, or have 4 squints. But this isn't really a path I was looking to diverge on, was just pointing out that the poster was painting an impossible scenario. I don't think most classify PS6 as a safe enough bet on moving last, or anyways I don't. Edited August 6, 2014 by GiraffeandZebra

[Rakky Wistol 2,903]

Turrets, primary or not, are a hard counter to mobility and arc dodging. And to a ship that has paid an intial premium on mobility and probably paid more to enhance that mobility, how is it not a hard counter? You no longer can do the thing you invested in, or if you still can, it's mostly irrelevant to the outcome (I grant you some outliers such as alphas and Turr dodging out of range after dying vs. ps 7 and lower).