Simply put... should expendable ordinance by pass shields? Would explain the cost of having an ordinance slot, make all the lackluster ships relevant, and make the B-Wing less of an (almost)auto add to most rebel lists.

I could see a 1 pt mod for flares so they don't get too stupid.

Flares-mod- 1pt.

once per turn, when you would suffer a hit or crit from a secondary attack in with the card was discarded, you may ignore one hit. If there is no hits you may then ignore one crit.

My fear is that it would swing the game way to the imperials, but if done correctly could make missile and Torps useable.

Dear god no. You screw up the game and balance as a whole.

As an Imperial player who loves bombers and grits his teeth at their unreliability? No. It wouldn't do much to improve ordnance itself, as it still "flip a coin, either you win or you lose." It also utterly destroys any reason to take Rebel craft with shields over hull. Not to mention that wave 4 is coming with some nice Imperial shielded ships and those would be rendered rather useless as well. Ordnance needs to become more reliable, this just makes the coin-toss when shooting one all the more critical.

Would something like "If a hit or crit is nullified by a shield token, remove an additional shield token." Work in the least? I have been mocking up ordinance lists all morning and they are ending up... lackluster against any b-wing lists

Properly placed Proton Bombs can utterly wreck B-wings, since they ignore shields and simply deal face-up damage cards.

Aside from that, I'd just like ways for ordnance to hit more. Like, being able to use the Target Lock's reroll effect on the ordnance you shoot (since, you know, a missile is following a target lock ). Or gaining a focus token when shooting with ordnance.

I imagine it's the difference between fire and forget (homing missiles) and having to maintain line of sight and target lock (like in Battlefield 4 )

You're starting from the assumption that there's a problem with game balance, with which I substantially disagree. Even granting that point for the sake of argument, though, these are not good fixes. Cutting through shields breaks the game completely; doubling damage against shields makes them worth substantially less than hull, which still drastically shifts the game toward ships that don't bother paying for shields.

So B-wings get "better", in that they're easier to kill… but TIE Fighter swarms are unaffected, so in comparison to every other list they're now even more effective.

If every list took ordinance, then yes. Except then assault missiles might be in the meta more and then knock down swarms a peg with their more numerous presence.

But I get your point, reason I started tthis thread up. What about a title that can be taken by any ship that reduces the cost of missiles and torpedoes by 1?

actually, if you asked me, I say either lower the point cost of ALL missiles/torps by 1 point each, OR give all missiles / torps +1 red dice. Also reduce autoblaster / proton bomb / proximity mines by 1-2 point while you are at it.

To make Bwings less of an auto add, simply reduce their shields from 5 to 4. That should do the trick.

Also, maybe create a missile that goes through shields?

Make the Falcon's turret a secondary weapon that shoots from range 1-2. That way, you actually reward smart flying, the Falcon still gets its scary scary 360deg, and everybody is happy.

Simply put... should expendable ordinance by pass shields?

No. Absolutely not. Not only would it break the game balance, but it would result in less variation, because it precludes FFG from making a new torpedo / missile later that has this effect.

The 5 top ships in winning Store Championships are clearly: X-wings, YT-1300, B-wings, TIE Fighters, and Firesprays. So what? Find a way to buff the other ships before you introduce mechanics that completely break the game. There is no need to nerf any of those 5 ships. There will always be "top ships" and therefore something to complain about.

What balance issue are you looking to fix with this? If you're worried about TIE Bombers not being useful because they need to pay for expensive ordnance, then the most elegant solution is to introduce:

Factory Munitions (0 points)

Modification. TIE Bomber only.

All Missiles and Torpedoes equipped on this ship have their cost reduced by 1.

If you're worried about TIE Bombers not being useful because they need to pay for expensive ordnance, then the most elegant solution is to...

...equip Munitions Failsafe, which is extraordinarily cheap and buffs all of your ordnance; run Jonus, who is cheap for his effect and buffs all of your ordnance; or run ships that can contribute extra actions (Jendon, Squad Leader); or exclusively run ordnance that allows you to keep your token (Homing Missiles and Ion Pulse Missiles) or has an effect even on a miss (Flechette Torpedoes).

What on Earth makes you think we need a "fix" to "even out both sides"?

Both sides are pretty **** even...

I don't like munitions failsafe, since it heavily implies that I would definitely miss my first shot. Many times, you only have that 1 good chance to unload the missile / torp (especially if it's assault missiles), and if you missed the chance, you could be stuck not being able to fire off that missile for quite a while. Even if you do fire it off, it may only deal like 1 damage, which Munitions Failsafe cant do anything about.


I'd very much rather do something that helps me get a good setup going for the missile launch, eg. squad leader, jonus, PTL, jendon. Unfortunately, on the Imperial side there is really only those 4 choices, whereas on the rebel side you have squad leader, dutch, garven, kyle, jan ors, PTL,

It's a pretty clever fix idea, but the sides are really even. At the last tournament we had half the players had rebel, half had imperial. This has been roughly true at every tournament I've been to. The finals were between an imperial list that only faced rebels, and a rebel list. Our store championship was roughly the same. If both sides weren't far more even than in most games this would not be the case.

Ordnance does need a buff. Costwise it just doesn't seem worth it. There are those that disagree, and feel munitions failsafe is enough. I find that more cardboard in general isn't worth it, and ordnance is a lot of cardboard. I have yet to come up with a clever solution for this issue though. Beyond even that, Ordnance has the following issues. First, it's much better on High PS lists, as getting a TL is easier when you move second, assuming your action isn't denied. Then you have to spend your TL to fire it, limiting your accuracy without support from Jonus or a focus. This is a difficult solution, as it means rebels suck with most ordnance, unlrss they spend more on cardboard. I think the best solution might be to cut the TL requirement, and allow a ship to give itself 2 stress to fire ordnance without one.

Vitriol aside, in the competitive side (after looking at the store championship results) is kinda with swarm, 3 bounty hunters, or rebels b-wings/x-wings/falcons. i doubt there is one answer to getting the rest of the ships into the mix more, but this was my stab at it. I admitted that I wasn't seeing all angles and thus I asked.

I still think the dearth of munitions is a bit odd and hoped by buffing ordinance perhaps indirectly give a buff to all ordinance carriers.

I see now that my original idea was too much b-wing hate, but I also feel that as they stand it's not really ordinance, just an extra laser strapped to the hull with scotch tape that falls off after it is used once.

The theory that the game is imbalanced to a degree that a fix is needed is flawed. I play Rebs/Imps interchangeably, as does my group. I have no problem winning reliably with either side and with different mixes of ships, as does my group. Some ships/pilots are better than others and there are clearly some distinctions between the sides, but any fixes needed are overwhelmingly in the area of individual ships/cards rather than the faction or game scale.

Again, we are looking at the data (Store Championship winners) completely different. If you don't see the variety, than I'm sorry. Compared to last year, which essentially boiled down to double Falcon or Swarm, and it was really, really obvious that was the case, this year is a beacon of variety and balance. Not surprisingly, the Worlds winner is having a high percentage of representation.

Much like ships and elite talents, some ordnance will be better than others. You can't fix them all, without seriously over boosting another. Expect to see the new missiles/torpedoes a lot. Along with some of the older missiles.

The game is as balanced as any I have ever seen published! Please stop trying to fix what has overwhelmingly been proven to work. Do what you want in your own games but pleeeaaassse stop trying to "fix" what doesn't need fixing.

Please.

I respect and honor your opinion but I think those brain cells could be better put to use elsewhere.

Respectfully,

Chris

The game is as balanced as any I have ever seen published! Please stop trying to fix what has overwhelmingly been proven to work. Do what you want in your own games but pleeeaaassse stop trying to "fix" what doesn't need fixing.

Please.

I respect and honor your opinion but I think those brain cells could be better put to use elsewhere.

Respectfully,

Chris

Discardable ordinance should roll die as normal based on hit vs evade, but it it hits it should have a set amount of damage. So say you fire assault missiles at a bwing and roll your 4 die against 1 and get a hit the assault missiles just do a set amount of damage to the ship, say 3, and then 1 to surrounding ships at range 1. That way the ordinance has a legit shot at any craft but better at less agile ones but if it manages to hit anyone they just get hit for a set amount. It never made sense that more agility took away from damage that a missile does if it hits. With beams it makes sense that the beam weapon partially missed its shot but there was some damage. Missiles and torpedoes should work a little differently than beams. My 2 cents.

Side note, I was surprised when I first started playing that proton torps didn't ignore shields. That was, after all, the reason they had to be used against the DS.

Maybe you want to just see some new kinds of ordnance. We've already got the Ion and Stress produces coming some maybe something like this would help satisfy some of you:

Devastator Torpedo: 4 Points (although open for debate)

Attack (Target Lock); Spend your TL and discard this to make this attacks. If this attack hits target ship deal that ship one face up damage card and cancel all die results. Attack 4, Range 2-3

Maybe should add "[crit] results can not be cancelled by dice" in there so that if a crit is rolled it automatically goes through but here you'd be getting your weapon that cuts through shields if it hits although it may not do as much as a normal Proton Torpedo could do.

Probably should be a point cheaper given the fact it costs the same as Proton Bomb but is evadeable.

Probably should be a point cheaper given the fact it costs the same as Proton Bomb but is evadeable.

It may be avoidable (see possible [crit] note) but it also chance to target a specific ship and at range. The Proton Bomb also costs 5 where I have that torp at 4 and it is possible to drop a bomb for zero effect if no one happens to be in range when it goes off. If I priced that Devastator Torpedo at 3 points it would be far too cheap at least to me.

Probably should be a point cheaper given the fact it costs the same as Proton Bomb but is evadeable.

It may be avoidable (see possible [crit] note) but it also chance to target a specific ship and at range. The Proton Bomb also costs 5 where I have that torp at 4 and it is possible to drop a bomb for zero effect if no one happens to be in range when it goes off. If I priced that Devastator Torpedo at 3 points it would be far too cheap at least to me.