You cannot compare the distances in computer games with those on a board game in this scale.

Take you game mat, place a ship in the middle and a second in the distance of 1,5 klicks of the first one, considered the correct scale.

Notice where the ship would be.

Happy gaming!

And yes there is Rhymer. Rhymers ability cost 5 points. This would make an APT cost 11 points + PTL = 14 points for a single 5 point shot. Horray! And with luck your 12 point Tie Fighter manages to get 3 evades. Hoorayy!!!

And how is any of that productive to improving ordnance? We know that distances in a videogame and distances in a miniatures game will almost never be compatible. What if there was a card that allowed more ordnance for Rhymer to carry - cheaper. Would that not make it that much more viable?

What if missiles could reach range 4 - would that not make them more viable?

This discussion is about improving the missiles and torpedoes. Not about pointing out why they need to be improved.

If something needs improvement, you need to know why.

If you don't know why, its just stupid try and error.

Sure, making ordnance cheaper would help.

A card that would allow to not to discard used ordnance would help.

If the Tie Bomber would get a crew slot, so jonus could board a Fleet Officer, would help.

Many a little makes a mickle.

If something needs improvement, you need to know why.

If you don't know why, its just stupid try and error.

Sure, making ordnance cheaper would help.

A card that would allow to not to discard used ordnance would help.

If the Tie Bomber would get a crew slot, so jonus could board a Fleet Officer, would help.

Many a little makes a mickle.

Exactly, there are many different ways to improve it that can be explored. The easy obvious one is points cost. I still maintain upping range will help. TIE bombers were generally single manned I thought, so can't justify a crew slot (especially as Y-wings don't have them...) A single FAQ rule that allowed warheads to be bought in pairs would probably do it too. It' change how bombers would run.

The method I use for a campaign I am in the process of writing is ship pools for your ships, and then assigned astromech/system/warhead pools to add to the ships. Once you are out of ammo you are out of ammo, but if you got em use them.

A lot of this could do with playtesting.

This could be a rule for all double-slotted ships. Buy 1 - get 2

Obviously the double-slotted ships job is to carry ordnance.

So if Tie Bombers buy a missile and a torp, they are full (bomb slot is still free of course).

This could be a rule for all double-slotted ships. Buy 1 - get 2

Obviously the double-slotted ships job is to carry ordnance.

So if Tie Bombers buy a missile and a torp, they are full (bomb slot is still free of course).

To be honest that's how I'd probably do it. It gives them multi shots while allowing versatility while in keeping with lore.

This would give Y-Wings their role as torpedo bomber back,

Rhymer would have at least 2 shots. One-Trick-Pony becomes Two-Tick-Pony ^^

Jonus bombers' would become serious with Gammas, since this would free up enough points to equip Jonus + a few bombs.

"TIE bombers were generally single manned I thought, so can't justify a crew slot (especially as Y-wings don't have them...)"

- A Tie Shuttle title card would fix this.

This would give Y-Wings their role as torpedo bomber back,

Rhymer would have at least 2 shots. One-Trick-Pony becomes Two-Tick-Pony ^^

Jonus bombers' would become serious with Gammas, since this would free up enough points to equip Jonus + a few bombs.

I reckon 4 trick. 3 points for a brace of concussion missiles - may as well use them for standoff before coming close and using the heavier weapons. But otherwise yeah, it makes the warhead platforms into true warhead platforms.

It might make Nera OP though.

And Yeah, bomber title card would fix it just fine.

I'd like to see a boarding version too with stormtrooper teams but that's for another discussion.

Of course with the "2 for 1" solution there must be no common discount for ordnance.

It just boosts the bombers in this game and this would be a good ordnance boost alltogether.

It would strongly encourage to load stuff at your Y-Wings, B-Wings and Tie Bombers.

Of course with the "2 for 1" solution there must be no common discount for ordnance.

It just boosts the bombers in this game and this would be a good ordnance boost alltogether.

It would strongly encourage to load stuff at your Y-Wings, B-Wings and Tie Bombers.

Exactly, while making it a do or don't decision for everything else. Notably the Advanced, A-wing and Z-95.

And here you have it.

And here you have it.

I think there is definitely a place for this modification in addition to the earlier one. I like that it is more cost effective but that it only applies to ships that really focus on ordnance. I would make sure to go with 'printed' that way cards like the Andrasta don't cheat the system.

I would probably word it diferently though: If you equip 2 of the same secondary weapons on this ship, reduce the cost of the second one to 0.

double post :/

Did we decide on this:

Extra Ordinance

Limited

2 Pts

Place on an existing purchased torpedo or missile

When the torpedo or missile is fired with this card on it you may discard this card instead. This card counts as attached to the the existing card and will be affected by any affects the existing card may suffer.

This allows you to get a second torpedo or missile for 2 pts. It could still be use with Munitions Failsafe.

And here you have it.

I think there is definitely a place for this modification in addition to the earlier one. I like that it is more cost effective but that it only applies to ships that really focus on ordnance. I would make sure to go with 'printed' that way cards like the Andrasta don't cheat the system.

I would probably word it diferently though: If you equip 2 of the same secondary weapons on this ship, reduce the cost of the second one to 0.

Yes, it would need a different wording.

But you can't use it together with Munitions Failsave. And this is good.

Its a modification. It is the price you have to pay. No extra boost action.

Ok. The only problem with this cost of 2 is that I truly believe that Munitions Failsafe would never be used. Let's face it

Why would you pay one point to have a chance to have 2 shots, when you could pay 2 to definitely have two shots.

Munitions failsafe would be good for non bombers for the one shotters. This is bomber only. I see no problems.

Munitions failsafe would be good for non bombers for the one shotters. This is bomber only. I see no problems.

Exactly.

Meh, I dunno. Had a discussion with one of my friends last night about the viability of ordinance and the like. These cards give you extra, cheaper ordinance to throw at your opponents but it doesn't actually improve ordinance use. You're just loading up on cards that you'll take with you when you go down eventually. Even if you shoot them they're not performing any better than the ordinance you'd be firing anyway. It's just cheaper.

Something to improve ordinance would be to make sure when the card is used it has a better chance of paying back its cost. Universal reduction across ALL The ordinance costs would mean their cost equals the chance of actually hitting something with them. But since FFG doesn't like to "re-print" cards, that's not an easy option.

A Mod is the only thing I can think of friendly to everyone, including generics (Since Deadeye is an EPT). Something that could improve hitting with secondary (discard) ordinance as opposed to Munitions Failsafe's retention of ordinance. It would have to be on the cheaper side to encourage the pricey ordinance to come back to the table. Hmm..

Remote Guidance Computer [Mod] [1 pt?]

"When declaring an attack with a secondary weapon, if the card has the header Attack [Target Lock]: and must be discarded, you may place a free Target lock on the defender before resolving the attack."

Upgraded Targeting System [mod] [? point]

"If you discarded a card with the Attack [Target lock] header, you may roll 2 additional attack dice after the attacker's modify dice step. These dice cannot be modified."

Remote Guidence Computer [mod] [1pt]

"When resolving an attack with a secondary weapon with the header Attack [Target Lock]:, if the card must be discarded, you may change one [focus] result to a [hit]. This result cannot be changed."

Ok. The only problem with this cost of 2 is that I truly believe that Munitions Failsafe would never be used. Let's face it

Why would you pay one point to have a chance to have 2 shots, when you could pay 2 to definitely have two shots.

I think we ended up with 2 different things:

A 3 point modification that lets you use ordinance a second time.

A 0 point modification that lets you carry a second matching piece of ordnance for free.