was think about this all last week and if i ever won worlds and got to invent a card it would be

Modification

"Computer Lock"

You may attack using a secondary weapon without a Target Lock or Focus Token

0 pts

or worded something like that. This way you can shoot your torps, missiles and blaster turrent when ever you want (even if you bump) and keep the tokens for modifing dice at the cost of your modification slot

what do you all think

I believe a point reduction won't ever happen since you can't do anything like a Chardan Refit for an upgrade. Munitions failsafe offers some help by making your ordinance count or you get it back, but it is a wasted point if you do hit on your first pass. Also, it seems their main use with flechette torps is completely against the spirit of the card. Personally I think they sould errata flechette to count as 'hitting' if its secondary ability is triggered.

To make ordinance more attractive, it would be nice to see a new modification called something like 'Enlarged Missile Bay' or 'Expanded Magazine'. These aren't quite elegant enough but you get the idea. It would be a 2pt upgrade that allowed missiles and torps to be discarded after their 2nd use. The strength of the upgrade would scale off the power of the ordinance purchased. It would be quite good on multi-slot ships and make them play more agressively. A Y-wing with flechette & proton with this mod could fire for most of the game. A Tie Bomber could be downright scary.

The only downside I see is that is downplays failsafe. It is still cheaper though. Potentially, my new upgrade could take up a missile or torp slot instead of being a modification. This would allow it to be paired with failsafe - but it would only allow multi-slot ships to use it.

MF was a dumb card. To me it was a poor band aid to the problem that is ordnance in this game. It makes every ordnance 1 point more expensive, it takes up a modification slot, and it only works if your attack fails. Not a good solution at all. A card that would make ordnance cheaper or make taking a 2nd torp/missile not as costly would be ideal.

Nera Dantels (26)

Fire-Control System (2)

Flechette Torpedoes (2)

Flechette Torpedoes (2)

Munitions Failsafe (1)

Total: 33

View in Yet Another Squad Builder

Phantoms and Interceptors hate this biuld becouse of Munitions Failsafe

All FFG need to do to "fix" Ordnance is to reduce the cost.

Simple fix- issue a rules addendum and stickers with the new, "correct", costs to apply over the printed costs on the pilot cards (future reprints can feature the changes). No need for special rules, just fix the real problem (cost) and be done with it!

All FFG need to do to "fix" Ordnance is to reduce the cost.

Simple fix- issue a rules addendum and stickers with the new, "correct", costs to apply over the printed costs on the pilot cards (future reprints can feature the changes). No need for special rules, just fix the real problem (cost) and be done with it!

Since when does anyone do anything the easy way

Nera Dantels (26)

Fire-Control System (2)

Flechette Torpedoes (2)

Flechette Torpedoes (2)

Munitions Failsafe (1)

Total: 33

View in Yet Another Squad Builder

Phantoms and Interceptors hate this biuld becouse of Munitions Failsafe

This does nothing but prove the point - Munitions Failsafe does nothing to fix ordnance. The best use of it so far is to exploit an ability that relies on intentionally missing.

I also think the jury's still out on just how much anyone hates this build. Interceptors and Phantoms both have enough green to clear the stress. You'll deny PtL to the common interceptors, but fire too late to actually impede the Phantoms. If you want to devote 1/3 of your squad to zero damage and a stress, I'm certainly not going to complain about it.

Nera Dantels (26)

Fire-Control System (2)

Flechette Torpedoes (2)

Flechette Torpedoes (2)

Munitions Failsafe (1)

Total: 33

View in Yet Another Squad Builder

Phantoms and Interceptors hate this biuld becouse of Munitions Failsafe

This does nothing but prove the point - Munitions Failsafe does nothing to fix ordnance. The best use of it so far is to exploit an ability that relies on intentionally missing.

I also think the jury's still out on just how much anyone hates this build. Interceptors and Phantoms both have enough green to clear the stress. You'll deny PtL to the common interceptors, but fire too late to actually impede the Phantoms. If you want to devote 1/3 of your squad to zero damage and a stress, I'm certainly not going to complain about it.

I have found a Interceptor with 2 stress tokens in a dead interceptor (1 from PTL 1 from FT). Phantoms only hay 4 green moves if they don't use one then they cant cloak after shootting this makes them more predictable and i like to know where my opponet is going to be next round. Echo is a little harder to predict but not impossible

Munitions Failsafe does not fix the problem but it can help. I posted my fix above

I'd simply like for all ordinance to remove the "Spend your Target Lock..." part on each card. Then you actually make MF useful again as its good insurance against a good defence roll.

Fire a Proton Torpedo against Whisper, roll 2 hits, an eye, a blank. Turn eye to crit. Whispers rolls 4 dice, 1 evade, 2 eyes, blank. Spends focus, no damage. Now you still have a TL and a missile to fire next turn if you still have a shot.

It turns MF into a safeguard against high agility ships. And considering FFG's current errata policies, changing the text on how the card works is much more likely than changing the point cost.

Another idea that i've seen floated before is to make ordinance fire 1st, like maybe at PS 13 (thanks Roark), but then prevents the firing ship from attacking at its usual step. Represents the ordinance being "fired" at longer ranges. I dunno, that doesnt make perfect sense. But mechanically its interesting. Makes Phantoms and the like play the range game better, as now they don't have the advantage at R3.

In the simulators they were stand off missiles. Would an upgrade increasing target locking to range five and increasing the range bands of fired ordnance by two have a significant impact?

Not sure, would definitely change the game though. You could easily be shot on Turn 1 though, which is probably why FFG set the limit to Range 3.

Hmmm true. Maybe increase the band by one then? Worst case would be range four than.

It would make expert handling a bit more common too!

What about a card like this: (putting multiple ideas together)

Action: Acquire Missile Lock (comes with tokens as well)

Rockets, torpedoes, & missiles only.

Use in place of Target Lock for ordnance. May only maintain 1 missile lock at a time. Do not discard after firing. May acquire new target next action phase.

Additional text, that I think would be awesome to see, but not likely to be implemented: May lock on to targets at Range 5. Allows firing missiles at range 4.

This would keep a perpetual "target lock" on a ship for firing missiles at them; however, it does not allow you to modify dice. The actual Target Lock (or Focus) would have to be used for that.

I also like the weapons bay idea (should apply to bombs as well) and tapping or turning the card, which would cut the cost of ordnance by half.

Personally we never used ordnance before MF. Now its used occasionally.

I dont *personally* have a problem with ordnance at the moment.

Then again i tend to use it on Nera usually and only her.

To me ordnance would make more sense if it didnt rely on your fire arc. TL doesnt require a fire arc and ordnace should be guided so perhaps it would be made more useful if it could be fired outsid of your main arc by anyone but an attack from outside your main arc gives you one more evade die (as the missile has to turn more to seek you)?

I get that it negates nera a lot but it would mean you could lock onto someone chasing you and let the missile do the seeking as real missiles work (well most these days unless you're talking fin stabilised rocket pods)

Working ordnance would make X-Wing another game. Modern jets don't dogfight, because the fight is over long before they get in range for dogfights. A cost effective missile is all the Z-95 needs to be unstoppable. Firing a volley of missiles at range 3, then waiting if the dice grant you an early victory - what could be more boring?

To a degree but we already have that and its not boring.

Loads of ordnance is range 2-3 and fired off on the intial approach.

Real missiles still have firing arcs that are pretty close to what a primary weapon firing arc would be. The sensor pod has to see the target to acquire them. Even the new fangled helmet mounted targeting systems only add, maybe 30 degrees (for the best) "off bore sight" targeting.

The beyond visual range locking and firing is something I think should be added to ordnance as well. That's clearly a technology we have now and I'm sure they would have had in 'verse as well.

well it exists as a special ability with colonel jendon doesnt it.

he can lock anywhere on board... equally huge ships sensor team allows it.

Perhaps a sensor upgrade is enahnced range target lock, for a few points you can lock out to range five or beyond?

In the simulators they were stand off missiles. Would an upgrade increasing target locking to range five and increasing the range bands of fired ordnance by two have a significant impact?

That would require anyone who wants to use ordnance to buy an Epic ship for the range ruler.

That would require anyone who wants to use ordnance to buy an Epic ship for the range ruler.

Hmmm, where I have seen that before? Oh yeah, Epic ship purchase to get C3PO, player has never played an epic game. I can name 2 friends that this applies to and I read a post about another guy who had 4 friends that have the ship but have never played epic.

In the simulators they were stand off missiles. Would an upgrade increasing target locking to range five and increasing the range bands of fired ordnance by two have a significant impact?

That would require anyone who wants to use ordnance to buy an Epic ship for the range ruler.

or use common sense and put another 1-3 ruler on top of a 1-3 ruler and shift it up two notches....

Only going to *not work* if you have one core set between both players.

That would require anyone who wants to use ordnance to buy an Epic ship for the range ruler.

Hmmm, where I have seen that before? Oh yeah, Epic ship purchase to get C3PO, player has never played an epic game. I can name 2 friends that this applies to and I read a post about another guy who had 4 friends that have the ship but have never played epic.

I guess if the upgrade that permitted the range increase came with an Epic ship it might not be so bad since you'd only have the upgrade if you had purchased an Epic ship. However, I would hope that if they release an Epic Imperial ship it doesn't have anything that buffs Rebel ships.

My thoughts are that given the epic ruler has a green 'imperial' side to it there was a clear intention to release an imperial ship that can use it.

I also think though that its on the back burner because perhaps tantive sales are not too great.

I've seen a lot of transports and corvettes slashed in price by stores and my local store hasnt sold one since i bought mine as far as i can tell.

To a lot of people its six normal ships, three 'aces' or large ships or a tantive they can only use in epic game every now and then so its probably not selling that well?

Just a guess?

To a degree but we already have that and its not boring.

Loads of ordnance is range 2-3 and fired off on the intial approach.

It is not boring, because it does not work. You can shrug off the initial volley and then face an opponent that is diminished by all the points he foolishy spent on ordnance. I'd rather face six Bandits with missiles than eight Bandits without.

Or you can be blown to absolute bits by that volley of ordnance. It happens, quite often in games i've played.

I flew a BBB list against my mate Sam and loaded Nera Dantels up with proton torps and advanced protons so whatever range you were at you were getting it wherever you were regarding arcs... put on MF to be sure.

Totalled two ships one with each volley. I'll admit that was more succesful than average but totally vindicated an ordnance loadout with MF.

And still left me with a B wing which naked is a competant ship.

Personally, I love playing with missiles. I have a shuttle/slave combo, where the shuttle feeds target locks to my slave and the slave is overflowing with secondary weapons. (With Recon specialist for double foci.)

However, in the Top 32 at Worlds, only ONE person had any ordnance: (In the top 16) Landon Otis (Flight 2, rank #10): Chewie + Luke + Falcon + C3P0 + Predator; Tala + Assault Missile + Munitions Failsafe; Tala; Bandit

What does that tell me? They aren't worth it when it comes to competitive play.

Oh something else that FFG might consider... upgrading ordnance to +1 attack die vs Large Ships. While there aren't a whole lot of Shuttles and Slaves out there, there are a ton of Falcon's. Might encourage more people to use ordnance.

Or you can be blown to absolute bits by that volley of ordnance. It happens, quite often in games i've played.

I flew a BBB list against my mate Sam and loaded Nera Dantels up with proton torps and advanced protons so whatever range you were at you were getting it wherever you were regarding arcs... put on MF to be sure.

Totalled two ships one with each volley. I'll admit that was more succesful than average but totally vindicated an ordnance loadout with MF.

And still left me with a B wing which naked is a competant ship.

Does not happen in games I play. And it would be boring if the initial volley could already determine the outcome. So you were successful with ordnance on Nera Dantels. Well, that is one of the rare ships where ordnance makes sense. Lt. Blount is the other one I can think of.