Okay so throwing this around and I know at first range bonuses were ignored to secondary weapons because at the start the only secondary weapons were missiles, torpedoes (and turrets).

So with looking at some of the new cannons and the problem that munitions still are underwhelming I was thinking of letting range bonus (Attacker gets +1 Attack Die at Range 1, Defender gets +1 Defense Die at Range 3) apply to secondary weapons too with the exception of missile and torpedo weapons.

So what will this do?

• Nerfs cannons such as HLC at range 3. (the defender will get an extra dice against range 3 cannon attacks)
• Buffs turret upgrades and short range cannons at range 1. (attacker will get an extra dice on range 1 attacks)
• Long range munitions may shift up in the meta as their ability to deny the bonus green dice becomes an advantage that is not taken by other weapons. (the defender will not receive a bonus dice against missiles and torpedoes at range 3)
• Short rang munitions while mostly unaffected will still suffer from the problem that they do not provide bonus red dice so any munition at range 1 will be under-classed unless it has a firepower of at least 4.(the attacker will not receive a bonus dice on range 1 attacks with missile and torpedo weapons)

It sort of makes sense as munitions with limited guidance systems would do better at ranges but up close they may not arm in time thus are less effective for close in gun fights.

No.

The idea of turrets getting better then they already are scares me.

-Cal

HLC costs 7 points and has a 2-3 range penalty, so it would be able to benefit from the range 1. So, nope.

Secondary Weapons are balanced specifically not to use range bonuses, so a big no on this one for me.

No.

Yet another edition of short answers to really long questions.

Secondary Weapons are balanced specifically not to use range bonuses, so a big no on this one for me.

Some are and some well, we got all the missiles and torpedoes which I suggested remain the exception to range bonuses. However there is a point to keeping the turrets from being to powerful at range 1 but really I think primary weapon turrets do more damage then turret upgrades and reach further too.

HLC costs 7 points and has a 2-3 range penalty, so it would be able to benefit from the range 1. So, nope.

Don't you mean wouldn't benefit from the range 1 bonus?

HLC is incredible (however I think the Mangler cannon will soon displace it). HLC on a B-wing/ Firespray/ or defender makes it so that you roll 4 dice on all range bands. The only disadvantage (besides the expensive upgrade cost) is that at range 2 and 3 crits turn into hits.

Now the cannon that would benefit is the under-powered autoblaster. The range 1 restriction is enough to make that card never used. Ion cannons would get a boon at range 1 (and loose it at range 2) however the extra dice does not add more damage just makes it more likely to hit.

No. Secondary weapons already negate a defender from getting an extra defense die at range 3. It would maker them too powerful.

Costing has been adjusted for current mechanics.

No. Secondary weapons already negate a defender from getting an extra defense die at range 3. It would maker them too powerful.

Uhh, that is what I'm saying. Added highlights to post so people can read it before posting.

Range bonuses which mean all range effects. So at range 3 there will be a bonus green dice for the defender thus removing the range 3 benefit that cannons upgrades provide.

Also I added an exclusion to missiles and torpedoes as the only secondary weapons to not have range bonuses so there will be no 6 attack dice prockets however missiles and torpedoes will now be worth taking over cannons at range 3 for denying that extra dice to a 3 agility ship.

No. Secondary weapons already negate a defender from getting an extra defense die at range 3. It would maker them too powerful.

Uhh, that is what I'm saying. Added highlights to post so people can read it before posting.

Range bonuses which mean all range effects. So at range 3 there will be a bonus green dice for the defender thus removing the range 3 benefit that cannons upgrades provide.

Also I added an exclusion to missiles and torpedoes as the only secondary weapons to not have range bonuses so there will be no 6 attack dice prockets however missiles and torpedoes will now be worth taking over cannons at range 3 for denying that extra dice to a 3 agility ship.

still a giant no. I think most people already understood what you were suggesting. I don't see any need to change the rules on secondary weapons. I use them plenty - missiles/torps on the other hand are what need some kind of buff, which your suggestion wouldn't provide.

Your suggestion that "missiles and torpedoes will now be worth taking over cannons at range 3 for denying that extra dice to a 3 agility ship." is wrong. If you make cannons less effective at range 3 it doesn't mean people will start using torps, it means people will just stop using cannons. We need to make missiles and torps better, not make cannons worse...

Absolutely not.

Going to have to add my no to the chorus. Your change might help autoblasters maybe. The only real change though is spooky turrets, and the teeth pulled from the HLC. The Mangler as well, better to have. 3 die base attack. Cannon are supposed to be scarier than a primary weapon. Your change kills that. They would all be wasted points.

I see a lot of (so brusque as to border on rude) negativity here with very little effort being made to counter his specific arguments.

Do you guys not think that HLCs are very powerful as is?

Do you feel autoblasters are perfectly fine right now?

If you don't like his idea, fine. But actually read what he said and counter his points, don't just post a knee jerk reaction based on the thread title with nothing to back it up.

I, personally, suspect that it would create more problems than it fixed, but to be sure would require a more in depth analysis of ALL the weapons it would effect than I am willing to do.

@OP -Kudos, by the way, for recognizing the possible knock on effect such a change would have on munitions. Most amateur game designers don't recognize that kind of interaction. Regardless of whether the rule would function beneficially or not, I thought your OP was well presented and thought out for an initial "brainstorming" type of idea well worth some discussion and analysis and did not deserve to be so casually dismissed by everyone.

Absolutely not. Secondary weapons are designed with those ranges in mind.

Think of them like modern weapons. Your primary is the good ol' Assault rifle. Targets farther away are harder to hit, those up close, easier. Then we have the Heavy Laser Cannon: our sniper rifle. It's much easier to hit a far away target with the HLC, because that's what it was designed for

I see a lot of (so brusque as to border on rude) negativity here with very little effort being made to counter his specific arguments.

Do you guys not think that HLCs are very powerful as is?

Do you feel autoblasters are perfectly fine right now?

If you don't like his idea, fine. But actually read what he said and counter his points, don't just post a knee jerk reaction based on the thread title with nothing to back it up.

Yes HLC is powerful, it's also expensive and self limiting. So while powerful, I also think it is balanced.

Autoblasters, yes I'm absolutely ok with them as they are. Hard to use, brutal when actually used. They don't need an additional die.

I don't think people are knee jerking, I think you brought that emotional reaction in here with you. The idea is pretty interesting, until you actually consider the numbers and the costs. Tell me you would find room in one of your lists for a HLC with the range penalty he describes.

Nope

I like the idea in general, if not in the specifics. Thematically I think it makes sense (most munitions having their own guidance systems). However, as others have noted, cannons and other secondaries were designed and costed with this mechanic in mind.

I think a mechanic that SPECIFICALLY effects munitions (missiles, torpedoes etc.) would be a much better solution.

I know others have posted many ideas, but I thought of another while composing my answer, I'll probably start a thread after I flesh it out a bit further, but the basic idea is a title "assault bomber" that improves action efficiency and costing of munitions.

I don't think people are knee jerking, I think you brought that emotional reaction in here with you.

Your post (which ninja'd mine), cpthalfbeard's and now SWdad's have been the only posts in the thread so far that have tried to offer counter arguments.

No.

I keep seeing speculation that the Mangler will replace the HLC, or that the Mangler isn't as good. I find it hard to compare the two. The HLC can land up to four hits. In an environment where only one ship usually has four evade dice, the HLC can usually deal damage simply by overwhelming the opponent's ability to dodge them. With only three dice on the Mangler, it's going to be harder to land hits. However, it'll still have a place thanks to the guaranteed crit and the ability to avoid the range 3 penalty.

I don't understand why you would want to make cannons worse, it won't make people want to take missiles/torpedos just because cannons are now less effective for there cost.

I could get behind removing the secondary weapon rules for the auto blaster, but that's probably it

If we want missile/torpedos to be useful then i think the rules from attack wing would be a good start.

ACTION: reload this weapon.

If we want missile/torpedos to be useful then i think the rules from attack wing would be a good start.

ACTION: reload this weapon.

I agree with something like this idea! Ordinance needs to be more than one shot and you are out!

HLC is fine the way it is, so changing ALL secondary weapons would be going too far!

I don't think people are knee jerking, I think you brought that emotional reaction in here with you.

5 of the 9 people who had replied when I made my post did so with at most "no, it's fine as is" and nothing else. 2 more replied no, and then provided reasons that showed they hadn't actually read his post. So 7 out of 9 replies were super short negations of the OPs idea, utterly devoid of useful content. So, yeah. I call that knee-jerk reactions. Posts that lack any counter arguments and consist entirely of "no", "nope" or "absolutely not" and nothing else do not promote reasoned discussion.

Your post (which ninja'd mine), cpthalfbeard's and now SWdad's have been the only posts in the thread so far that have tried to offer counter arguments.

People were asked a yes or no question. They weren't asked to promote further discussion, and even if they were, given the passion and fire with which people tear others apart, I personally would be hesitant to share my opinion.

Just my 2 creds.

-Cal