Hey all-

Had this idea the other day when thinking about secondary weapons, specifically missiles and torpedoes.

I know they are generally expected to underperform and newbies often have their dreams shattered by a 1dmg torpedo.

I think these weapons are fundamentally flawed because they don't separate chance to hit from damage output. For example, it doesn't thematically make sense to have a TIE survive a hit from a proton torpedo. From a gameplay perspective, it also doesn't make sense to have an expensive one time use weapon to be less effective than TL+focus.

I'm not proposing major game changes, and perhaps this could throw off the balance, but I would like to see missiles and torps work like ion cannons. If this attack hits, disregard dice and make "X" happen or "deal 3 damage." Torps could revolve around sheer damage and missiles for special effects.

To me, the only one that behaves like it should is Cluster Missiles...maybe flechette torps as well.

TLDR: I want my missiles and torps to feel like a slug, not buckshot.

I like how Attack Wing handles most of its torpedoes. When used they are "disabled". One simply needs to spend an action to re-enable them. Some of the extremely powerful torps are one use though (like the 10 dice Transphasic Torpedoes). After all, the likes of Tie Bombers are meant to hold dozens of missiles and torpedoes, not 1. It would definitely go a long ways towards making many of the missiles that are considered too expensive worth it.

I think that makes a lot more sense thematically, once the thing hits you it would explode and do some major damage, but this sadly would not be balanced in this game. Especially with Lt Blount auto-hitting it would be way overpowered. I do agree with you that missiles and torps need some help.

Interesting idea. Not much that can be done in this regard with the existing ordnance, but new ones could be done that follow this route.

Might be problematic with things like Draw Their Fire and Lt. Blount where the damage being inflicted doesn't match the ship that was hit.

Interesting idea. Not much that can be done in this regard with the existing ordnance, but new ones could be done that follow this route.

Might be problematic with things like Draw Their Fire and Lt. Blount where the damage being inflicted doesn't match the ship that was hit.

"If this attack hits, cancel all dice results. The defender suffers 3 {solid explosions}"

Might be problematic with things like Draw Their Fire and Lt. Blount where the damage being inflicted doesn't match the ship that was hit.

"If this attack hits, cancel all dice results. The defender suffers 3 {solid explosions}"

Exactly. That is how such a weapon would be worded, and Draw Their Fire is useless against it and Lt/ Blount would ALWAYS do 3 damage with such a weapon. Are those things problems?

Might be problematic with things like Draw Their Fire and Lt. Blount where the damage being inflicted doesn't match the ship that was hit.

"If this attack hits, cancel all dice results. The defender suffers 3 {solid explosions}"

Exactly. That is how such a weapon would be worded, and Draw Their Fire is useless against it and Lt/ Blount would ALWAYS do 3 damage with such a weapon. Are those things problems?

Nope. It's like Ion Pulse Missiles, but instead of the Ion Tokens, you deal moar damage.

Might be what these upcoming Proton Rockets are about, eh? Slow-moving but with a huge payload....

Nope. It's like Ion Pulse Missiles, but instead of the Ion Tokens, you deal moar damage.

Nope what? IPM stop DTF from working and Blount always hits with them, just as I said for our hypothetical new ordnance. Or are you saying that nope, having a weapon that bypasses an upgrade and that guarantees a particular pilot can one-shot a TIE is not a potential problem.

Perhaps torps should be only ones to get guaranteed damage, to prevent blount abuse? I'd be fine with it stopping DTF from working, though it might have to be an expensive torpedo to compensate.

Nope. It's like Ion Pulse Missiles, but instead of the Ion Tokens, you deal moar damage.

Nope, having a weapon that bypasses an upgrade and that guarantees a particular pilot can one-shot a TIE is not a potential problem.

This one.

It would be an expensive 1-use weapon, to be sure, and would likely either sport fewer than 4 dice, a heavily restricted range, or both, but the mechanic itself is not over-powered.

One thing to remember. Almost every hit we land is a glancing blow. When a Photon torp hits it exploded behind the tie unless it managed a "Direct Hit" That means functionally, that most ties that get hit by the Torpedo are in fact vaporized. It's the ones that only got hit by part of the blast that live.

Hey all-

Had this idea the other day when thinking about secondary weapons, specifically missiles and torpedoes.

I know they are generally expected to underperform and newbies often have their dreams shattered by a 1dmg torpedo.

I think these weapons are fundamentally flawed because they don't separate chance to hit from damage output. For example, it doesn't thematically make sense to have a TIE survive a hit from a proton torpedo. From a gameplay perspective, it also doesn't make sense to have an expensive one time use weapon to be less effective than TL+focus.

I'm not proposing major game changes, and perhaps this could throw off the balance, but I would like to see missiles and torps work like ion cannons. If this attack hits, disregard dice and make "X" happen or "deal 3 damage." Torps could revolve around sheer damage and missiles for special effects.

To me, the only one that behaves like it should is Cluster Missiles...maybe flechette torps as well.

TLDR: I want my missiles and torps to feel like a slug, not buckshot.

One thing to remember. Almost every hit we land is a glancing blow. When a Photon torp hits it exploded behind the tie unless it managed a "Direct Hit" That means functionally, that most ties that get hit by the Torpedo are in fact vaporized. It's the ones that only got hit by part of the blast that live.

I agree this makes sense from a "torpedo" perspective. I'm not sure this matters from the perspective of this game, but in the real world AND in the Star Wars universe, Torpedoes and Missiles are fundamentally different. Missiles are direct hit weapons, meaning they intend to directly impact the target and do not detonate unless that happens. Torpedoes, real ones and Star Wars ones, are NOT direct hit weapons. A real world torpedo does significantly less damage if it impacts the hull of the ship. It is designed to hit the keel, or more often, detonate just below the ship, creating a void in the water. When this void fills back in, it does so with hundreds of times more pressure than the explosion of the torpedo ever did, causing massive hull failure. Star Wars torpedoes are similar. Proton torpedoes are small nuclear weapons. In ship-to-ship situations, it is much more likely to deal damage to the other fighter by detonating in front of it, causing it to fly through the nuclear blast. The Flechette Torpedoes are a perfect example of this effect. They detonate in front of the ship, creating a field of flak. You receive the stress token regardless if your ship is struck by the actual explosion, because you are forced to fly through the debris field created by the explosion. If you also take damage, you just had a bad day. So, as Aminar mentioned, any TIE Fighter that flips a Direct Hit card is almost always destroyed by a Proton Torpedo, representing Direct Impact on the TIE Fighter's hull. Otherwise, and more often, the ship flies through the sphere of energy just after the torpedo detonates, causing it to take a little bit of damage, but likely survive. The destruction of the Death Star could have happened due to this, also. At least one of the torpedoes had to make it all the way down the exhaust, but with a Proton Torpedo (as opposed to a missile), it is much easier to guarantee damage to the reactor because of the larger explosion from the nuclear detonation. Therefore, the torpedoes didn't have to and probably didn't actually impact the main reactor. Missiles, on the other hand, typically carry less explosive because they have to more accurately track their target, which requires extra hardware. But, then, there is the discrepancy, as they can still draw Direct Hit cards, likely leading to the death of their Target. In which case, congrats to the attacker.

I know, I know, science fiction, and I am undoubtedly overthinking it. But the difference between Torpedoes and Missiles in-universe is based on how they work in the real world. I agree the game isn't quite realistic, especially because a large part of the function of a torpedo is based on water pressure, and this game takes place in space. But, just some food for thought.

I was more referring to all shots as a whole are glancing unless the crit says otherwise. But thanks.

I actually mentioned not too long ago that I wish Torpedos were clearly designed to be fired against bigger ships while missiles were meant to kill fighters, as that falls more in their wheelhouse.

In the end, ordnance in this game is flawed, but newer ordnance is pretty good. Flechettes are awesome and Ion Missiles, while 1 point too expensive(because why would I take an Ion missile if I can take an Ion cannon for the same cost...) is still the most useful missile in the game relative to its cost.

One thing to remember. Almost every hit we land is a glancing blow. When a Photon torp hits it exploded behind the tie unless it managed a "Direct Hit" That means functionally, that most ties that get hit by the Torpedo are in fact vaporized. It's the ones that only got hit by part of the blast that live.

Not incidentally, if a Proton Torpedo hits a TIE Fighter, there's an 85% (0.8474) chance that it deals at least one face-up damage card. From the perspective of the TIE Fighter, an opponent's decision to launch a torpedo is a nail-biting exercise in luck--both on the dice and on the damage deck.

So the problem isn't that they don't do enough damage when they hit; in fact it's sort of the opposite problem of running Interceptors. If you fly Interceptors, you know that over the course of a tournament, your green dice are going to completely fail you at least once in a situation where you should have been fine. Similarly, if you run Proton Torpedoes, you know that at least once your red dice are going to explain in exacting detail where you can stuff your hopes for making the top table, and you're left running 8-12 points of ordnance that end up being worth a total of 1 damage.

For a long time, people didn't run Interceptors not because they weren't good, but because they were inconsistent. Hull Upgrade, and the ability to run multiple modifications, are both starting to change that for the Interceptor--but until very recently it was hard to make Proton Torpedoes consistently effective enough to justify their cost.

As for the OP, I want to home in on just a couple of points in particular:

From a gameplay perspective, it also doesn't make sense to have an expensive one time use weapon to be less effective than TL+focus.

Actually they're not too bad. Suppose a Rookie Pilot with Proton Torpedoes has a target lock on a TIE Fighter with focus at Range 3. His Proton Torpedoes have an expected damage of less than 1 (about 0.97), but that's nearly three times the expected damage of a primary attack (about 0.35). Even if you double up on actions and give the X-wing both target lock and focus, that only gets him a bit more than halfway to the Torpedoes (about 0.57).

If you close to Range 2 it gets a bit better, since the extra defense die is gone; now the Torpedoes are approximately equivalent to the TL+Focus primary attack. But it's very hard to find a context where the expected value of TL+Focus for the X-wing's primary than the Torpedoes, and it's a lot more straightforward to get the Torpedoes to work (particularly for generics).

...I would like to see missiles and torps work like ion cannons.

There's no barrier to doing it this way, but as Forgottenlore points out, there are a lot of potential balance issues. For instance, suppose "Mk. II Proton Torpedoes" roll 4 dice, and if they hit the target, they cancel all dice results and do [hit][hit][hit]. They're now more reliable against high-Agility ships, but there are already a lot of things in the metagame working against high-Agility ships. And meanwhile, low-Agility ships don't really care about the change, and actually they're sometimes happy about it: a B-wing, for instance, can now be completely confident that it will take at least three Torpedoes to kill it.

To me, the only one that behaves like it should is Cluster Missiles...maybe flechette torps as well.

Ironically, Cluster Missiles lag behind all other ordnance in cost-effectiveness except for a couple of corner cases. They're drastically better if you can put a reroll behind them (Han, Krassis, or Jonus), and against 1 Agility they're okay but only if you stack both a focus and TL.

This is an awesome topic that I have been spending a lot of time thinking about the past 2 weeks, so I thank you for making this thread.

My thoughts on missiles and torpedoes in Xwing is that they should be different from normal attacks in that they perform some specific function. Much like flechette torpedoes applying stress or ion pulse giving ion tokens, or the assault missiles obviously being intended to counter swarms.

I know it probably isnt likely but if FFG ever makes a 2.0 type of update for the game I would like all the missiles/torps to get some sort of update to reflect this specialized function that Ion missiles, flechette torps and even assault missiles have. Some possible examples are as follows

Proton Torpedo - 2 pts range 2-3 atk 4

Attack (Target Lock): Spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack. You may change 1 of your Focus results to a Hit result. If this attack Hits the target suffers 1 Crit then cancel all dice results.

The point of the proton torpedo is to reliably apply a crit to a ship to try and cripple its effectiveness, as it is no longer able to auto-destroy any of the ships currently in game I felt a pt deduction would be acceptable

Advanced Proton Torpedo - 5 pts range 1 atk 4

Attack (Target Lock): Spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack. Double the defenders Agility vs this attack. If this attack Hits the target suffers 4 dmg then cancel all dice results.

The idea behind this updated version of the APT is that it should be the killer of large ships, I feel that while there is a chance it could 1 shot a tie, the chance is low enough and the cost is prohibitive to run more than a few in a list. Statistically a 6 agi tie with focus/evade should be able to weather a 4 dice atk that isnt getting the benefit of TL rerolls or focus. Obviously this becomes much more powerful when combined with a second turn focus, or when combined with other pilots like garven or katarn, or a pilot that lets you reroll dice like jonus. Plus some wiill argue that the standard 3 dice atk (or 4 at range 1) from a bwing or xwing with TL or Focus will be more effective than this atk anyway, but i think it will go a way in helping 2 atk ships deal more dmg.

Homing Missile - 4 pts range 2-3 atk 4

Attack (Target Lock): Spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack. Reduce the defenders agility by 1

i've run quite a few rebel builds armed with 4 torps. You'd actually be surprised how effective they can be. Sometimes you get nothing but when one hits it can be devestating to an opponent. I usually get 2 really good torps out of taking 4. I'd also like to point out that taking four torpedos is 16pts, killing one academy is worth 12... not to mention a falcon or large ship will melt w/ 4 torps coming at it.. sure it seems like torps are not that great and that is usually when you only take one in your whole list or decide to burn it as soon as you can instead of the opportune moment.

i've run quite a few rebel builds armed with 4 torps. You'd actually be surprised how effective they can be. Sometimes you get nothing but when one hits it can be devestating to an opponent. I usually get 2 really good torps out of taking 4. I'd also like to point out that taking four torpedos is 16pts, killing one academy is worth 12... not to mention a falcon or large ship will melt w/ 4 torps coming at it.. sure it seems like torps are not that great and that is usually when you only take one in your whole list or decide to burn it as soon as you can instead of the opportune moment.

My issue has always been the hassle of getting the target lock, firing the missile, and not getting to modify it. They're not action efficient, and really telegraph your plans. Especially because to be effective you also have to sink points into a PS bid. And 4 pts for a single attack... Yes, they can be devastating, but 4 pts moreso than just firing my laser? Only on ships with 2 attack(that are then less useful by far, and on Falcons, which I've been dealing with just fine of late.)

i've run quite a few rebel builds armed with 4 torps. You'd actually be surprised how effective they can be. Sometimes you get nothing but when one hits it can be devestating to an opponent. I usually get 2 really good torps out of taking 4. I'd also like to point out that taking four torpedos is 16pts, killing one academy is worth 12... not to mention a falcon or large ship will melt w/ 4 torps coming at it.. sure it seems like torps are not that great and that is usually when you only take one in your whole list or decide to burn it as soon as you can instead of the opportune moment.

My issue has always been the hassle of getting the target lock, firing the missile, and not getting to modify it. They're not action efficient, and really telegraph your plans. Especially because to be effective you also have to sink points into a PS bid. And 4 pts for a single attack... Yes, they can be devastating, but 4 pts moreso than just firing my laser? Only on ships with 2 attack(that are then less useful by far, and on Falcons, which I've been dealing with just fine of late.)

hmm yes I should say i do tend to agree a bit at least. I wouldn't be taking 4 rooks w/ torps to a tournament. But with that being said running 4 rooks w/ torps is actually more fun (at least for me) then running the best meta list out there. Plus if you are just playing some games with friends to have a good time it's not really about winning. Maybe that's why torps work out for me / who knows. You don't have to burn your torps on the first pass either, hang on to the target lock for a few rounds and get a focus to go with it at an opportune distance. Makes you a bit more dangerous actually hanging on to it. Your opponent will be thinking about those torps every round you are not in range 1. Also try putting a torp on wedge sometime...

I agree with the OP. I think Torps should have a low attack 2 or 3, but when they hit they cause some effect and dice are ignored.

I think missiles should stay pretty much the same, but need to be about 1 point cheaper across the board. Unfortunately, we got Munition Failsafe as a bandaid fix... So ordnance is still ineffective in 100 point lists.

I don't see FFG changing the ordnance system completely.

How about an Ordnance Modification card that is placed on a chosen Torpedo, Missile or Bomb which increases it's cost but allows you to flip the weapon's card over instead of discarding it, then you can flip it backup on an action. Or the Mod could give you a set of 3-4 Ordnance Tokens that you spend to attack, rather than discarding. The cost should put the modified ordnance around the same cost as a cannon or turret, since their attack values are roughly equivalent.