Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

At that point, why not just make it any turn instead of leaving some room for quibbling over 10% or 1.2 hours of clock face?

 Alfndrate wrote:
the reason why I'm thinking of things the way they are is for balance, not competition

The idea of using a static armor threshold mechanic instead of an active dice mechanic is not really an issue of balance in scenario play. Rather, it's an issue of simulation. The threshold mechanic feels more like armor because like armor it is passive. If you want to talk about balance, the issue is more like how many ships will face off against how many turrets and ships?

 warboss wrote:
At that point, why not just make it any turn instead of leaving some room for quibbling over 10% or 1.2 hours of clock face?

Because the heavy turrets should have a sense of weight -- they shouldn't just spin around willy nilly. This also gives the opposing player a chance to think more tactically about maneuvering around them. TBH I would hope there would be little to no quibbling about 1.2 hours on the clock face ...

Of course, if you think that would be a problem in your group then just say the turrets can only swivel a full 90 degrees at a time.

I gave two possible fixes to the turret swivel in my post. You guys should read it.

I did, or tried.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
This would put the turret on a round base and use either the 1 or 2 90 degree the to move the turret.

I don't really follow.

 Manchu wrote:
Because the heavy turrets should have a sense of weight -- they shouldn't just spin around willy nilly. This also gives the opposing player a chance to think more tactically about maneuvering around them. TBH I would hope there would be little to no quibbling about 1.2 hours on the clock face ...

Of course, if you think that would be a problem in your group then just say the turrets can only swivel a full 90 degrees at a time.

Eh, I've seen otherwise very reasonable people argue over a small thing like that in wargames if they truly believe they're right even when both have good sportsmanship. YMMV but I see something like a 90% restriction clash with the simple elegance and feel of the Xwing rules which has nothing of the sort currently. IMO the "weight" of the turret is adequately demonstrated by giving it a normal firing arc instead of the typical willy nilly spinning turret with 360 degree firing arc. The gunners choose a direction at their appropriate pilot skill and the turret faces that direction; they then adjust the firing within that arc.

A turret facing its arc 180 degrees away from where it faced last turn? I have no problem with this for a specifically anti-starfighter weapon but not for a big boy like the XX-9. To me, it's more interesting for the opponent to look at the turret and visually measure an arc and think -- hey, that's the danger zone, I should keep moving behind that.

I think a 360 firing arc for a smaller turret that takes down fighters works, but if its a capital ship killer then a 90 degree arc would work

To clarify:

Warboss's heavy turret has a 90 degree firing arc but can spin 360 during the movement phase.

My heavy turret has a 90 degree firing arc and can only spin up to 90 degrees in either direction per movement phase.

 Manchu wrote:
A turret facing its arc 180 degrees away from where it faced last turn? I have no problem with this for a specifically anti-starfighter weapon but not for a big boy like the XX-9. To me, it's more interesting for the opponent to look at the turret and visually measure an arc and think -- hey, that's the danger zone, I should keep moving behind that.

Are you talking about 90 degrees or 90%? There is a chance we're talking about different things.

I don't know what you mean but I tried to clarify our different designs in the post above yours.

Just checking if you originally meant that a turret can turn 90% (so 324 degrees... and yes I realize that is also a 36 degree turn in the other direction) or if the turret can turn 90 degrees in its movement phase.

Okay, I've got a simple way to handle 90 degree swivels on a turret- put them on a round base matching the #1 Turn template, and have a mark on their base which is used to measure. Simply place the movement template so that it describes a 90 degree arc of the models base, with one end touching the marker. the model may turn so that the marker is anywhere still touching the template.

That may have been what timetowaste85 was saying.

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
the reason why I'm thinking of things the way they are is for balance, not competition

The idea of using a static armor threshold mechanic instead of an active dice mechanic is not really an issue of balance in scenario play. Rather, it's an issue of simulation. The threshold mechanic feels more like armor because like armor it is passive. If you want to talk about balance, the issue is more like how many ships will face off against how many turrets and ships.

But if the ships can't penetrate through the armor of the turrets, then which ever side has the turrets will have a distinct advantage, in which balance will have to come from making the objective easier for the "attacking" player.

Looking at the Trench Run from A New Hope, the Rebels are out gunned and out numbered by the Imperials. Yet their only objective is to bulls-eye a thermal port no larger than a womp rat, if they manage that, then no matter how many survive, the mission is a success in the Rebel command's eyes. That could easily be done by having a successful attack roll against a target on the Imperial Players side of the table. The Imperials could have 150 to 200 points of ships and turrets to play with, showing the massive number of men and guns the Death Star has. If the Turrets are not easily able to be destroyed, then they remain a significant advantage for the Imperials. A turret should not be able to withstand the kind of onslaught that we currently have it written to withstand (heavy armor only taking damage from critical hits).

I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong), but you're coming at this from a fluff standpoint yes? You want to be able to have turrets on the table and exist and are more intimate with the knowledge behind how the turrets were armored their guns, etc... I'm coming at this from the game side of things. I can see (as can you) what is working in the game as it exists now, so I'm trying to make something that will fit in that system without issue.

 Alfndrate wrote:
But if the ships can't penetrate through the armor of the turrets

Huh? Of course starfighter weaponry can penetrate heavy armor -- we see that in A New Hope. In my take, only critical hits penetrate heavy armor; so you have a 25% chance of effectively hitting with each attack die, right?

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
But if the ships can't penetrate through the armor of the turrets

Huh? Of course starfighter weaponry can penetrate heavy armor -- we see that in A New Hope. In my take, only critical hits penetrate heavy armor; so you have a 25% chance of effectively hitting with each attack die, right?

Sorry the statement you quoted was missing an effective piece of writing, "But if the ships can't penetrate through the armor of the turrets because only critical hits affect them". My bad :(

Yeah it has a 25% chance of hitting, but that's if you roll criticals or take marksman.

I'd like to test it out both ways, I might be able to do that this weekend. I'll let you know

You seem to be swinging back and forth. At first, you were concerned about not having defense dice to ensure your turrets survived longer and now you seem to think they are indestructible.

A X-Wing has a 1/64 (~1.6%) chance of destroying an undamaged XX-9 turret (as written) on a single turn (it jumps to ~3.1% with Marksmanship). A X-Wing has a 1/512 (~0.2%) chance of destroying an undamaged TIE Fighter on a single turn. That's not even counting how much easier it is for the X-Wing to line up an immovable turret for a shot than a TIE Fighter.

 Manchu wrote:
You seem to be swinging back and forth. At first, you were concerned about not having defense dice to ensure your turrets survived longer and now you seem to think they are indestructible.

Of course, because I'm thinking about it while I stare mindlessly at software updating itself. The more I think of it, the more angles I'm coming at the issue. And until I get to see it on the table, I will continue to waffle back and forth as I play out scenarios in my head. I'm not swinging back and forth to create confusion I'm just trying to think of a balanced way to play it.

A X-Wing has a 1/64 (~1.6%) chance of destroying an undamaged XX-9 turret (as written) on a single turn. A X-Wing has a 1/512 (~0.2%) chance of destroying an undamaged TIE Fighter on a single turn.

Is the 1/64 based on the person getting 2 critical hits with direct hit twice?

My thing with the giving it 1 agility was because originally my thought process was that turrets get damaged using the same rules as ships. They have hull points, they have a Green defense stat, and they can have shields. As the 0 agility seems to becoming more prominent in this thread, then I have to change how I see this situation because turrets go from working like the ships in the game (the easiest rules translation) to working differently.


Edit: Most of the issues become a moot point as soon as you drop it to medium or light armor though.

Turrets cannot work like ships because they cannot move, only pivot.

It takes three critical shots to destroy the XX-9 as written. The X-Wing has three attack dice and a 1/4 shot of getting a critical on each. So it's just multiplication.

 Manchu wrote:
Turrets cannot work like ships because they cannot move, only pivot.

It takes three critical shots to destroy the XX-9 as written. The X-Wing has three attack dice and a 1/4 shot of getting a critical on each. So it's just multiplication.

Psh, maths! I was an English major in college (not that that's helping me out right now ).

Like I said I want to try it out both ways before I decide which one works better.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Most of the issues become a moot point as soon as you drop it to medium or light armor though.

I think that's a matter of the scenario. Medium armor gives a X-Wing a better than 12% chance of destroying the Turret in a single attack phase.

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Most of the issues become a moot point as soon as you drop it to medium or light armor though.

I think that's a matter of the scenario. Medium armor gives a X-Wing a better than 12% chance of destroying the Turret in a single attack phase.

The only issue I'm having is the "critical is the only thing that damages" heavy armor turrets. Though Medium armor only take damage if there is 1 critical hit or at least 2 regular hits.

If I hit with 2 regular hits, does that deal 2 points of damage or just 1?

 Manchu wrote:
I did, or tried.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
This would put the turret on a round base and use either the 1 or 2 90 degree the to move the turret.

I don't really follow.

Probably because auto-correct failed me again. Lol. We have the 90 degree curve pieces for range 1 and 2: putting a model on a round base would allow you to place the correctly sized curved movement piece around the outside, and turn the turret from one end of the mvmt arc to the other. If you have a square base, you could make a square 90 degree piece to pick up the turret and turn it 90 degrees, which the square piece will measure perfectly for you.

 Alfndrate wrote:
If I hit with 2 regular hits, does that deal 2 points of damage or just 1?

Just one. But if you roll two regular hits and also a critical hit, that's two.

Also -- my math was wrong. The X-Wing still has the same chance of destroying the undamaged turret in one attack phase but a better chance of damaging it at all.

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
If I hit with 2 regular hits, does that deal 2 points of damage or just 1?

Just one. But if you roll two regular hits and also a critical hit, that's two.

Also -- my math was wrong. The X-Wing still has the same chance of destroying the undamaged turret in one attack phase but a better chance of damaging it at all.

So we're ignoring the first regular hit. It should probably just say that instead .

Not sure what you mean. You roll the attack dice all at once. If you haven't got more than one regular hit or a critical hit, you haven't penetrated the medium armor at all. If you have three regular hits, that's a penetrating hit. If you have two regular hits, that's a penetrating hit. If you have one regular hit and one critical hit, that's a penetrating hit. If you have two regular hits and a critical hit, that's two penetrating hits.

Would it just make things a lot easier to just give heavier-armored turrets more hull points and forget all the conditional damaging?

 Manchu wrote:
Not sure what you mean. You roll the attack dice all at once. If you haven't got more than one regular hit or a critical hit, you haven't penetrated the medium armor at all. If you have three regular hits, that's a penetrating hit. If you have two regular hits, that's a penetrating hit.

Okay, so no matter the number of penetrating hits, the medium turret only loses 1 hull point. Is that what you're saying? The reason why I'm asking is because if I fire my X-wing at a TIE Fighter, and I manage to hit 3 penetrating hits (i.e. no evades or focus) then he takes 3 damage cards worth of hits and blows up into dust.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jin wrote:
Would it just make things a lot easier to just give heavier-armored turrets more hull points and forget all the conditional damaging?

To me? yes it would, as long as they then worked exactly like how ships receive damage.

 Jin wrote:
Would it just make things a lot easier to just give heavier-armored turrets more hull points and forget all the conditional damaging?

You could strip a lot of things out of X-Wing if you just wanted to make things easier. In addition to ease, I'm interested in simulation. I like the armor mechanic because it requires a quality of hit. In A New Hope, we see a X-Wing take out a XX-9 with a few shots. Using my armor mechanic, that is possible if not very probable (BALANCE!). Just adding a pile of hull points makes it impossible ... and, at least to me, totally bland. OTOH, if you wanted to write a scenario that was about nut-flicking something to death, that would be the right mechanic.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Okay, so no matter the number of penetrating hits, the medium turret only loses 1 hull point.

Nope, every penetrating hit is one damage to the turret. It can only take 3 penetrating hits as written.

 Manchu wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Okay, so no matter the number of penetrating hits, the medium turret only loses 1 hull point.

Nope, every penetrating hit is one damage to the turret. It can only take 3 penetrating hits as written.

Your edit explains that, but the part that I quoted did not . So why not just say, "Ignores the first penetrating hit" and not have this rigmarole of of medium turrets are only damaged by multiple penetrating hits and critical hits that we currently have.