Most ordinance upgrade cards are overpriced by at least a point, and the first two waves of fighters that can carry ordinance appear to be overcosted as well before the designers realized the ability to carry ordinance had no value when the ordinance itself was overpriced. The Tie Advanced and A-Wing being notable examples.

In the fourth wave, FFG added Munitions Failsafe as a 1 point modification, but this doesn't solve the problem. The one point cost is is prohibitively high for ship with only one missile/torpedo, and takes up the modification slot. Not worth using unless you have two missiles or torpedoes on a single ship, and the chance of the ship surviving long enough to use both ordinance, and then being able to fire the ones that miss, is certainly not assured. The card ought to have come with the Tie-bomber, but it came out too late for that.

What if the rules treated ordinance as having the effect of munitions failsafe built in? Whenever your missile/torpedo/bomb missed, you don't discard the card. I think that would properly balance ordinance point-wise and help out the ships that aren't doing that great in the meta: the Y-Wing, A-Wing, Tie Interceptor, and Tie bomber.

Nope.

Actually the better and simpler fix would be to remove the spending of the Target Lock to fire.

It won't happen.

The ordnance that really suck are Proton Torpedoes, Advanced Proton Torpedoes and Concussion Missiles. Fired naked, they don't do that much. They need outside assistance, or very specific pilots, to make them playable. Munitions Failsafe is a card that will punish you even further if you equip any of them. You're paying one more point to reuse a bad weapon.

All the rest of the missiles and torpedoes are at least 'playable', to some extent, either being cheaper, or offering some other kind of effect as well as the damage output.

I was thinking about this today.

I think that perhaps Munitions Failsafe could add the additional text (paraphrased legalize, its obviously only for secondary weapons requiring a card discard):

"If the attack does not hit, you may gain a target lock on the defender".

But TezzasGames is right, the main damage dealing missiles need to be fixed first. Munitions Failsafe is already marginally useful on Assault Missiles, and soon Ion Torpedoes, simply because you don't want to lose a 5 point investment.

Actually the better and simpler fix would be to remove the spending of the Target Lock to fire.

Then you immediately make Homing Missiles and Ion Pulse Missiles worse than they are.

That's why munitions failsafe should be free and there by default.

Or how about this idea, shooting ordinance does not take the place of your normal fire. So you get an extra shot in a turn when you shoot ordinance.

That's why munitions failsafe should be free and there by default.

No, because the underlying problem is that SOME missiles / torpedoes are worse than others. The goal is to get relative parity between all of them, not take the usable ones and make them even better than they need to be.

That's why munitions failsafe should be free and there by default.

But it's not.

We can speculate all we like about what cards 'should do' - but they don't. They have been printed - that's it.

FFG have shown that they are very hesitant to errata cards. We don't have a situation like Magic does where we effectively ignore what's printed on the card and use the current Gatherer wording.

Munitions Failsafe is what it is. As MJ pointed out, it's a reasonable one point insurance policy to pair with Assault Missiles and Ion Torpedoes. Besides that, it's difficult to justify on the rest of the current ordnance.

missile/torpedo/bomb

You mentioned bomb, but bombs are not secondary weapons and are not in any way affected by munitions failsafe, nor should they if the failsafe was "built in".

Actually the better and simpler fix would be to remove the spending of the Target Lock to fire.

Then you immediately make Homing Missiles and Ion Pulse Missiles worse than they are.

In what way? Homing still prevents evade tokens and Ion still Ions. If anything these two were "fixed" by removing the requirement to spend your Lock.

Well Homing could have it as part of the bonus but then why do Ion Pulse Missiles and Proton Rockets have it as well.

We'll just have to wait on see what FFG does and given their history I'm not to worried.

Sorry to be the spelling Nazi here, but explosive weaponry would be "ordnance." "Ordinance" is more like a rite or ritual.

Munitions Failsafe is what it is. As MJ pointed out, it's a reasonable one point insurance policy to pair with Assault Missiles and Ion Torpedoes. Besides that, it's difficult to justify on the rest of the current ordnance.

I think Munitions failsafe could have cost 0. the opportunity cost of consuming your mod slot would have been a fair cost in my opinion but now its just another overpriced optional extra for already overpriced optional extras.

I suspect more and more ordinance will come out with wording similar to that of homing missiles and proton rockets in that you don't need to spend your lock (or have one for that matter) to fire the ordinance.

FFG went ultra conservative on the first 3 waves of ordinance (which to be honest is probably better than under costing them) but it just means everyone will need to wait a bit longer till we get tournament viable ordinance.

And TBH I'm more interested in the new Turrets and cannons in S&V at this stage anyways. It feels much better to have secondary weapons you can fire every turn regardless of whether they hit or not.

If you remove the restriction to spend target locks, then you make Homing Missiles significantly worse than Concussion Missiles and Advanced/Proton Torpedoes. You improve three pieces of ordnance at the expense of another.

Ion Pulse Missiles show that FFG are designing better ordnance, given the current restrictions of needing to spend target locks that exist on the older ordnance weapons.

Proton Rockets don't use target locks. Besides, they're basically designed to improve the TIE-Advanced, as they are an extremely aggressive attempt to get people using them. I will be.

I don't know if or how FFG will fix Concussion Missiles and Advanced/Proton Torpedoes, without upsetting the balance for all ordnance. They're as good as scrap metal for most squadrons to consider.

In an ideal galaxy, all ordnance would be relatively balanced. Currently, that's far from true.

Much better would be if you do not discard the missile/torpedo card at all after shooting. You do a reload action to put new munition into launch tube. If that is too powerful, you maybe need to roll a hit dice where a crit will cause "autoloader failure" for that round. In any case you do not have time to shoot but a couple of times during a match, which is within limits how many missiles a fighter can carry.

That would make MF useless, sure, but it is so goofy card from the beginning. I mean why in the earth a munitions that just missed suddenly teleport back to weapons rack?

Ordnance just needs a massive points cut. They're already hugely limited by the number of slots you can take.

This probably won't happen at any point soon, however. Nera Dantels with APTs + Deadeye + Recon Spec is awesome, though.

Proton Torpedoes - 2

APT - 3

Ion Torpedoes - 3

Flechette Torpedoes - 1

Missiles

Proton Rockets - 1 (1 may even be a little too much considering they cost 3 on A-Wings).

Ion Pulse - 2

Cluster Missiles - 3

Concussion Missiles -2

Homing Missiles -3

Assault Missiles -3

I love me some TIE Bombers with some ordnance, so what I'm about to say is not because I hate the concept of ordnance at all, nor am I saying that some fix might not be in order. Still, I'd really like to see some mathwingerry on ordnance before I decide to write them off.

My thing is that I cannot fathom FFG changing the rules and point costs as written on the cards. So, have your house rules as you please, but I'm more interested in contemplations on what FFG might do, rather than what coulda/shoulda been the case but is too late now to overturn.

Tie Bombers and Y-Wings should get a discount of -1 point on all one-time ordnance equipped.

fixed.

Yes, ordnance (or rather, the low popularity of ordnance) is something FFG should take note of. I don't think a slight discount will do it - at all. You will still be paying "pilot upgrade card level" points for a one-shot weapon that is less reliable than most primaries, without being substantially more 'punchy'.

You can either be flying, for instance, an X-wing, and you will be wondering why you'd want to put, say, a 3 points proton torp on your ship, to get a dubious one-shot in, in stead of boosting your pilot or craft in a way that gives you (quite often more reliable) effect over the course of all the rounds your craft is alive. This is not just my conclusion, it seems to be the general trend. When did you last see an X-wing with ordnance?

Or, you can be flying a Tie Bomber, where the ordnance IS much more powerful than your primary weapon, but STILL unreliable, convoluted to deliver, and, of course, one-shot. So you have more ordnance slots, yes, and the more you load up, the more you invite disaster. Deliver that torp (AFTER your opponent shoots you, more often than not) hit or miss, but afterwards you'll be fighting an uphill battle against that other guy who chose the X-wing - and spent his points on anything but ordnance. For the same points he'll probably be shooting first, he will most certainly be shooting harder, he will be able to spend his T/L to reroll 3 dice, not two, he will have nice pilot abilities to use every round, and every move you make in your list building to close that gap merely widens it further. It speaks volumes that people are apparently more interested in running Tie Bombers naked with Howlrunner in support, than loaded with Jonus in support. With all the limitations on the effective use of ordnance in this game, torps and missiles really should hit MUCH harder.

I dunno what to do about it, but it seems the devs are unwilling to completely pull cards from the game and replace them with new ones, so I don't think they will bring out new proton torps, for instance. In other words, we are trying to guess what the devs might (should!) do to fix ordnance so that we will suddenly want to use all the 'dead' cards we have in our stashes right now.

I think this misses the point of ordnance. Think of the star wars movies, how much combat was done between fighters with missiles? Dog fights are intended to be done with a ships in built weapons. Ordnance is for taking on bigger targets ( like proton torpedoes vs small thermal exhaust shafts). Unless the missiles are intended to soften up fighters ( like cluster or assault), they are normally an expensive one shot punch. My bombers armed with advanced or regular proton torpedos, really make a mess of huge ships and their 0 agility, but I don't field them in dogfight games. Ordnance is meant as special mission add ons, but real men/women/androgenous hermaphrodites dogfight with lasers!

So if you fire your Assault missile and miss, don't get all C3P0 on us about how it wasn't worth the points.

Would break Flechette Torpedo, kinda. You'd never want to hit with it.

Honestly, the only difference I'd like to see on torpedoes, missiles, and bombs is getting two uses instead of one out of each of them. IIRC, fighters like the Y-, X-, and A-Wings can hold 6 or more munitions in their internal magazines, so you could use this to represent that full payload. Having them as one-shot weapons makes some sense for the Rebels, since (especially early on) they're strapped for cash and can't afford a lot, but the Empire has the funds to not send out their ships with near-empty magazines.

I think this misses the point of ordnance. Think of the star wars movies, how much combat was done between fighters with missiles? Dog fights are intended to be done with a ships in built weapons. Ordnance is for taking on bigger targets ( like proton torpedoes vs small thermal exhaust shafts). Unless the missiles are intended to soften up fighters ( like cluster or assault), they are normally an expensive one shot punch. My bombers armed with advanced or regular proton torpedos, really make a mess of huge ships and their 0 agility, but I don't field them in dogfight games. Ordnance is meant as special mission add ons, but real men/women/androgenous hermaphrodites dogfight with lasers!

So if you fire your Assault missile and miss, don't get all C3P0 on us about how it wasn't worth the points.

True in the films but most other media shows that a well placed ordnance spell doom to any snub fighter should it hit. People familiar with the x-wing novel series knows how many TIE were downed with a proton torpedoes but also that nearly as many did evade at the last minute thanks to their mobility.

So I'd see the ordnance more like an all or nothing weapon in the same way as ion weapon it should only need to get one hit and then you cancel the dices and get some effect (yes that makes Lt Blount too powerful). Maybe missille should deal one face down damage card and proton torp one face up damage card in the same way as the proton bombs.

Yeah and Proton Bombs were ment to ... mindless bombard the surface of astroids ...

And Y-Wings never use their turrets because of ... Lucas don't want them to shoot Darth Vader approaching from behind.

So it is just legal that we have tons and tons of ordnance but we don't use it.

Absolutely right.