I had a thought the other day and this may have been thought of already but here goes anyways. As has been said a lot, munitions (missiles, torpedoes, bombs) are often not worth their cost. This is particularly true with the older, higher cost ones such as Proton Torpedoes, Advanced Proton Torpedoes etc.

The trick is to make these have more utility without overpowering the cheaper ones (like Proton missiles.

So I thought what about a modification, similar to munitions failsafe, that is 1-2 pts that allows a second shot by discarding the mod on the first fire. Let's call it "Fully Loaded". This is different than failsafe because if you do damage the first shot, you can still use the weapon one more time and do damage again. Make it only work on munitions that cost 4 points or more to keep the more balanced, newer munitions from using it.

Using a proton torpedo as an example, it costs 4 points. Add an additional point (or 2, haven't playtested the balance on this yet) for "Fully Loaded" to make it 5 points total. Now you have two chances to fire the single weapon. If you miss, you get a second shot. If you hit only one damage, you can try again on another attack. If you hit hard, you can have the chance to hit hard again.

It gives the weapon essentially a cost of 2.5pts for the 4 dice. And of course munitions are also balanced by their need of a TL, range restrictions and the opportunity cost lost of using the mod slot.

I think this is a cool and possibly one of the few ways to add usability to older munitions that are overcosted without bumping up the cheaper stuff.

Thoughts???

I've always wondered if a higher cost for some munitions but them being there for the duration of the game would not be more useful and more thematic.

Like its crazy that a TIE bombers carries one or two bombs, in the bit in ESB when they are bombing the asteroids they drop loads.

I think a 35 point bomber that could drop a bomb per turn fits in better than a 20 point one that carries one....

Obviously you'd have to redo the whole bombs mechanic so it isnt going to happen but I'd like to see bombs as the *primary* weapon on bombers, rather than them being 'heavy tie fighters'

I've always wondered if a higher cost for some munitions but them being there for the duration of the game would not be more useful and more thematic.

Like its crazy that a TIE bombers carries one or two bombs, in the bit in ESB when they are bombing the asteroids they drop loads.

I think a 35 point bomber that could drop a bomb per turn fits in better than a 20 point one that carries one....

Obviously you'd have to redo the whole bombs mechanic so it isnt going to happen but I'd like to see bombs as the *primary* weapon on bombers, rather than them being 'heavy tie fighters'

I like that idea for the bombers. It would have to be some sort of mod or upgrade, maybe that costs 3 or 4 points for balance, but allows unlimited use of bombs (excluding proximity because there would be way too many on the board really quickly). Unlimited use of other ordnance sounds overpowered to me when you consider pilots that can give out target locks and other such abilities that make firing secondaries easy. Hence the double shot mechanic. On a bomber you could have a combination of 5 attacks with missles and torpedos if fully loaded. Doubt it would stay alive long enough to do so.

I had a similar idea, but it was aimed more at buffing not only munitions but the YWing and Bomber - my idea was that you do get to fire the item twice in one turn, but you have to take two of them. You'd only need one target lock or focus for both attacks.

I had a similar idea, but it was aimed more at buffing not only munitions but the YWing and Bomber - my idea was that you do get to fire the item twice in one turn, but you have to take two of them. You'd only need one target lock or focus for both attacks.

This would make alpha strike strategies way too powerful. The better approach would be enabling "bombers" to use their weapons more often. For example, make a bomber and y-wing mod that costs X points but reduces the cost of all secondary weapons to zero. That lets you set a fixed price for a fully-loaded ship that is cheaper than the equivalent weapons on a ship that isn't a dedicated torpedo boat.

A version of deadeye that goes in the modification slot seems easiest to me.

This would make alpha strike strategies way too powerful.

Depends how much you price it at.

A lot of the problem is that it's too hard to set up a shot with target lock and focus, and adjusting cost doesn't fix this.

I have thought about this in the past, and came up with the idea of allowing a primary attack after a munitions attack. Never play tested it, but seems less OP than allowing multiple munition attacks. Also, as the TL / focus was likely used during the first attack, the follow-up primary attack will be unmodified, also helping keep this solution from being OP. Finally, I think it has precedent because there are already munitions (bombs) which you can use the same turn as making another attack.

I have thought about this in the past, and came up with the idea of allowing a primary attack after a munitions attack. Never play tested it, but seems less OP than allowing multiple munition attacks. Also, as the TL / focus was likely used during the first attack, the follow-up primary attack will be unmodified, also helping keep this solution from being OP. Finally, I think it has precedent because there are already munitions (bombs) which you can use the same turn as making another attack.

That might actually be really good as a 1-2 point mod. In fact, I may house rule test something to that effect. . .

Making it a mod has the side benefit of not having any interaction shenanigans with Munitions Failsafe.

A simple rewording so you don't spend TL or focus to fire would help alot so you can just fire and be able to modify in one turn.

All missiles and torpedoes have just about every problem they can have: they're too expensive, they're not very effective, they're hard to deploy.

The newer, less-expensive munitions don't fix that. They are cheaper, but they're not terribly effective -- range or damage is more limited, in exchange for some useful effect (stress tokens, ion tokens).

All of the fixes for them should be dirt cheap -- and there should be a good variety of fixes to choose from. And I think the fixes for munitions need to be severe. Examples:

[Missile/Torpedo] Magazine: This is a [missile/torpedo] upgrade. It provides 2 [missile/torpedo] slots -- for 1 point. (There could be a Bomb version of this as well.) (This upgrade probably should be Limited so that you can't put another magazine inside of a magazine.)

Munitions Guidance System: This is a modification that adds 2 attack dice when using missiles or torpedoes -- for 2 points.

Advanced Munitions System: This is a modification; "When attacking with a missile or torpedo, before rolling dice, you may acquire a free target lock or receive a focus token." -- for 1 point.

I like the idea of a variety of options to fix different issues. They just will have to be careful how they stack (or rather don't). An alpha strike with a 7 dice missile with target lock and a focus would be extremely deadly. But I agree that missiles and torpedoes have several limiting factors. Cost is a big one with the other being requiring a TL and then not having it for the attack. Being able to mitigate these is key. But I do think that you have to be careful with some of the newer ordnance that it does not receive the same benefits, or at least not all of them. That's where it gets trickier for balance I think.

But is the newer ordnance really any better or more efficient than the older stuff? I'm not convinced it is. Look at Flechette Torpedoes, Ion Pulse Missiles and Proton Rockets. They're cheaper than what we've seen before, but they have lower attack values, limited range, and not terribly impressive effects. Stress token? Big deal. The ability to ion a large ship in one shot? That's nice, but it's overkill for a small ship. Need to be at range 1 to make a 5-damage shot one time, and it costs you 3 points? Not sure that's such a bargain; I mean, sometimes you get lucky with Proton Torpedoes too, and you can do that from Range 2-3, and you get to turn a focus into a critical hit -- for just 1 more point.

It looks to me that the new ordnance is pretty much balanced with the old ordnance -- which is good, because it means the designers can give us across-the-board fixes that will make all ordnance more effective without making some ordnance too effective.

But if you're concerned that rolling 7 attack dice with Assault Missiles is too powerful, there's an easy fix for the fix by just limiting the maximum amount of dice that can be rolled to (say) 5 or 6. As it is, Assault Missiles are going to average about 3 damage to their primary target, which would be scary if you could do it repeatedly but it's a one-shot weapon that, often as not, isn't going to do enough damage to destroy the TIE Fighter stupid enough to fly straight at the ship carrying it. To make Assault Missiles scary, you've probably got to load up a couple of Bandit Squadron Pilots with them -- and just like that, you're spending 10 points, almost the value of an additional ship, for an average of about 6 damage (and some splash) -- with a lot of ifs and maybes and dumb maneuvers making it possible. And it's a one-two punch and that's it; you'll never see it again in the game. It really isn't worth it. Severe fixes are needed.

* * * * *

tldr: I don't think the newer ordnance is better or more efficient than the older ordnance. I think the designers can give us across-the-board fixes that will make all ordnance better. If some fixes are too extreme, they can be given reasonable limits.

Great ideas.

In addition to the above, I'd like to see more scenarios that encourage players to take ordinance. For example, a bombing run. Player A has to destroy a specific target and can only do so with a missile/torpedo. Player B has to stop them. Player A has to consider, do they take 1 ship with ordinance and spend the points on ships to protect it, or spend more points on ordinance and have several ships armed.

I think a series of scenarios released by FFG would breathe a lot of life into the game. Possible scenario packs with the scenarios and a small piece of relevant scenery could be a good seller. Shield generators, Satellites, Turrets, etc with accompanying rules would be great.

A version of deadeye that goes in the modification slot seems easiest to me.

this

[Missile/Torpedo] Magazine: This is a [missile/torpedo] upgrade. It provides 2 [missile/torpedo] slots -- for 1 point. (There could be a Bomb version of this as well.) (This upgrade probably should be Limited so that you can't put another magazine inside of a magazine.)

Easily done: Make it an upgrade that goes into the missile/torpedo slot (a missile/torp, like the chardaan refit). The text says that you put up to 2 missiles/torpedoes on this card. That way you can't stack the magazines in magazines, and nice sideeffect you can loose the magazine on a single crit (which kinda makes sense :-) ).

Although I don't see why carrying more weapons of questionable use is a good fix... ;-) It has to come with some way to auto-obtain TL - or like mentioned above something like "spend focus token to aquire TL".

Another nice toy would be something like a command module, other target computers are linked to that one module, so you only have to aquire one TL and it will be passed on to connected ships (similar to swarm tactics); limit benefit to ships with ordnance slots (as they will have the system build in), to avoid additional Howlrunner effect for TIELn/Phantom/Interceptor...

Another alternative fixing that has been proposed would be resolving ordnance (missiles, torpedoes, bombs) attacks in initiative order, and then, proceed to resolve cannons or primary weapons.

By conceding "priority" to ordance weapons, you'll alleviate the race for high PS that was stablished in the last meta. You no longer need Han + VI + Roark to ensure you fire before the phantom... You would only need an ordnance weapon. Suddendly, 4 or 5 points of ordnance seems more attractive if you know that your humble gamma squadron bomber will fire before Han's turret, or Whisper's cloak, or Wedge vaporizes you.

FAQ this into the rules?

Divide the points cost of a missile, torpedo, or bomb by two (Round down for missiles and torpedoes, up for bombs) place a token on the missile, torpedo, and/or bomb upgrade card. Spend one token each time the weapon is fired. When the associated upgrade card no longer has tokens on it turn it face down.

??

[Missile/Torpedo] Magazine: This is a [missile/torpedo] upgrade. It provides 2 [missile/torpedo] slots -- for 1 point. (There could be a Bomb version of this as well.) (This upgrade probably should be Limited so that you can't put another magazine inside of a magazine.)

Easily done: Make it an upgrade that goes into the missile/torpedo slot (a missile/torp, like the chardaan refit). The text says that you put up to 2 missiles/torpedoes on this card. That way you can't stack the magazines in magazines, and nice sideeffect you can loose the magazine on a single crit (which kinda makes sense :-) ).

Right, that's pretty much what I'm saying, except that I don't like the possibility of losing that many points worth of upgrades from a single crit -- although it makes sense "in the mind's eye", it doesn't seem balanced for play. Make it a Limited missile (or torpedo or bomb) upgrade that provides two missile (or torpedo or bomb) upgrade slots.

Another alternative fixing that has been proposed would be resolving ordnance (missiles, torpedoes, bombs) attacks in initiative order, and then, proceed to resolve cannons or primary weapons.

By conceding "priority" to ordance weapons, you'll alleviate the race for high PS that was stablished in the last meta. You no longer need Han + VI + Roark to ensure you fire before the phantom... You would only need an ordnance weapon. Suddendly, 4 or 5 points of ordnance seems more attractive if you know that your humble gamma squadron bomber will fire before Han's turret, or Whisper's cloak, or Wedge vaporizes you.

That'd be a huge change to the way the game has been played up until now (which makes me think it's unlikely to happen), but it's very interesting. It still only addresses part of the problem.

FAQ this into the rules?

Divide the points cost of a missile, torpedo, or bomb by two (Round down for missiles and torpedoes, up for bombs) place a token on the missile, torpedo, and/or bomb upgrade card. Spend one token each time the weapon is fired. When the associated upgrade card no longer has tokens on it turn it face down.

I doubt we're going to see something like that. I think it's more likely that we'll get add-ons (new cards) that attempt to correct the problems, without rewriting any existing cards.

Rather than jury rig more ways to carry more ordnance, the mechanic itself could be improved, namely: let's consider the potential of removing the single use restriction on missiles, torpedoes, and bombs.

Currently, the main differences between ordnance type weapons and cannons are the single-use, and, particularly of the older weapons, the target lock or focus requirement placed upon the attack. Now, if you suddenly make ordnance unlimited multiple use, they would immediately become better, primarily based upon cost, than most cannon equivalents, so that would nerf cannons out of existence. To combat this, I believe two things that are inherent to ordnance must be magnified and/or maintained: one, the requirements for firing must be maintained (e.g., target lock or focus to fire, usually spending that TL or Focus just to fire the weapon), and two, there must be some other mechanic that separates a more cumbersome system (ordnance) from a ready-fire weapon like a cannon or turret.

So, what if a new action, specific to ordnance, was introduced that allowed them to become multiple fire weapons, but toned down against cannons/turrets. For lack of a better name, call it an "Readying" action. After you fire ordnance, you flip the card face down. As an action, you may take the "Readying" action to "re-arm" an ordnance card, flipping it face up. It may then be used again as normal.

This would mitigate the high cost of ordnance by making it multiple fire, it would still require TL/Focus (whatever the activation mechanics are for the specific missiles), and it would slow the rate of fire (relative to cannons/turrets, maintaining their every turn availability) by requiring the "Readying" action to re-arm the weapon, effectively restricting it to every other turn at most without action economy, and probably more than that since you usually want to stockpile TL AND Focus to make the shot better. Further, it would actually give a reason to place different ordnance on bombers, both to give variety to the tools available, but also to allow them to have ready ordnance available after firing so that they could be effective for multiple consecutive turns. Finally, it would eliminate the single-shot restriction on standard ordnance which has always been strange to me since conventional aircraft carry multiple payloads, so there was no real reason for them not to exist here. This would give the designers a new mechanic to play with (so that you could have extreme single-shot, or limited shot, ordnance), and would probably require cost adjustments (though most people agree that the vast majority of ordnance is overpriced as it currently plays).

The net result of this, I believe, would be that ordnance would be viable, but not overpowered. The limits on the use would still make it tactically limiting and the inherent cost of ordnance would limit spamming it or put huge targets on missile toting ships (which are not typically that elusive and can be brought down). It would make ordnance-dependent ships much more viable because they wouldn't have to rely upon their typically crappy primary weapon after firing once. This move alone would "justify" a high agility/maneuverable ordnance ship like the TIE Advanced, as it could reuse a quality missile throughout the game and not need another tweak to its combat effectiveness.

Now, there probably need to be some additional restrictions, mostly to combat action spam pilots. This could be accomplished by forcing the "Ready" action to be tied to a Modification or Title (thereby adding additional cost), or simply not letting a "readied" ordnance be fired in the same turn (to avoid PTL type ships from spamming them turn after turn) or have it flip over in the End Phase rather than immediately. There are multiple ways to combat the spamming aspect, which is an important consideration in order to prevent them from being overpowered. And for the question of ships like X-Wings or B-Wings that could carry both and still have a decent primary, the limiting factor remains cost: how much more points do you want to sink into a single ship? Even a 4 point repeating Proton Torpedo is a costly upgrade, so I don't think it would be a widespread problem, particularly given that it cannot be fired turn after turn like a primary or cannon.

Anyway, if it were up to me, this is the route I'd explore as a designer.

I have thought about this in the past, and came up with the idea of allowing a primary attack after a munitions attack. Never play tested it, but seems less OP than allowing multiple munition attacks. Also, as the TL / focus was likely used during the first attack, the follow-up primary attack will be unmodified, also helping keep this solution from being OP. Finally, I think it has precedent because there are already munitions (bombs) which you can use the same turn as making another attack.

Same with advanced proton torpedoes. 6 points for five attack dice at range 1 only makes sense if it didn't include losing an easy 3-4 attack dice attack at range 1.

Considering how advantageous it is currently to attack over defend, the worst thing to do is to increase the effectiveness of alpha strikes by allowing multiple attacks in a single turn.

A modification that removes the one-shot restriction would help some. It could even be a 0 point upgrade, since the exchange of a primary attack along with a target lock for the secondary attack is enough of a detriment.

Based on the ideas I've liked most so far in this thread:

Networked Targeting

Modification

If a friendly ship within range 1 has a target lock, this ship also counts as having the same target lock, which this ship may spend as if it were its own.

0 points? 1 point? It does require tying up the modification slot on all involved ships after all.

Improved Target Acquisition

Modification

Before firing, this ship may spend a focus token to acquire a target lock.

1 point

Advanced Ordnance Interface

Modification

When this ship spends a target lock in order to fire a secondary weapon, it may immediately reacquire that target lock.

1 point? 2 point?