It's still a no.

Ordnance is fine, it just takes time to use. It's situational, and you as a pilot have to be good enough to create the situation, as opposed to having it handed to you in a neat little "one turn" bow.

Cannons are also very very fine. The autoblaster turret might need some help, but the new y-wings should be able to make use of it.

I think secondary weapons are functioning just fine as is right now. FFG has done a great job balancing them within the rules that they have laid out. I see people take HLCs with mixed results pretty regularly which is a good thing. HLC is not the reason fat dash is so good, the hlc makes it worth all that action economy, but if dash were a normal 3 dice ship people probably wouldn't pony up for outrider +hlc.

Ion cannons seem to work ok as well. I never manage to find points for them but I know people who will use spare points and give ions to their Bs and defenders to help them at range 3, trading potential damage for higher probability of hitting, which is a great game mechanism IMO.

Autoblaster could maybe use a buff, I don't see it used much even after the rules buff.

The turrets would certainly benefit from this since none of them can hit range 3 right now anyway it would be fun to throw 6 dice with an ion hog y wing, but like I said the ships are already gaining attacks when they get turrets.

And ordinance is probably beyond saving anyway.

An interesting idea from the OP but I think secondary weapons are functioning just fine right now.

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.

A simple "no" or "I don't like it" is not being rude.

Really there is not much to discuss when it's so obvious how terrible of an idea that is.

Who is going to use a hlc for 7points when the defender gets a bonus?

That's kind of the idea.

If what the op suggested was to happen there is a lot of redesigning that needs to be done.

The cost of basically every single secondary weapon along with play testing would need to be done.

If someone does not like the idea there is nothing wrong with a short blunt answer "no" or "I don't like it"

Nothing hurtful is said.

It just goes to show the majority don't like it.

I'm sorry but I think it's a terrible idea

Instead of nerfing secondary weapons in order to boost ordinance, why not just try fix the missles and etc instead.

That is a better solution.

Edit

Unless someone here works for ffg and can confirm, how do we know something like this may have been in the original design.

Maybe the hlc was cheaper but that was before there was any range bonus in their design.

If it was then they changed it for whatever reasons they saw after play testing it

Never mind prople already said my peace. Post deleted. For reference I vote no

HLC's nerf is costing seven points for an extra attack die. Nerfing cannons won't make torpedoes and missiles get used, it'll just make secondaries even more uncommon. Ordnance's problem is it costs too much.

Oneshot warheads need some sort of fix, and they're so widespread I think it really needs to be a rule change rather than a card. A second shot (effectively halving the cost without reprinting the cards) might do it, or one very nice "fix" I saw was making it so that if ordnance hits it cancels all evade results. Same chance to hit, but much higher damage.

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.

I think others have made my point that a short answer is not inherently rude. So all I want to leave here is yes, I am a ninja.

No

No

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.

<shrug>

Sometimes an idea that is still not thought out completely receives a terse response.

1. I'm not entirely sure what is prompting the need for such a nerf. Clearly, the HLC is the main prompting. And clearly some want the Autoblaster to be playable. But, you nerf the new turrets completely out of the equation. Having the Ion, Flechette, and Mangler having to deal with an extra die at range 3 is a really big deal. And with 2 of those, the range 1 bonus doesn't do much since you are capped at 1 damage. I think it is important for the Ion and Flechette to have those range 3 capabilities. Not to mention the Mangler will become way too good for the Scyk. For 6 pts, you increase your primary by 1. Not drawback period.

2. I really don't like the rewriting of the rules such a change would require. Not only do you have to change the secondary weapon rule, you have to specifically separate Missiles and Torpedoes as a specific exception to the rule. I don't like specific exceptions that are in the rule book. And once you do that, you are locked with those specific exceptions, no matter what other types of secondary weapons or ordnance design thinks of in the future. I mean, where does Hot Shot Blaster fall into the secondary weapon typing? People already have issues with Bombs or whether an Illicit upgrade is a secondary weapon, but lets go ahead and add another confusing layer, one that has a lot more difficult in game implications if you are not fully understanding the new rule.

3. While it may not be a big concern to many, but this change would make the long range Hardpoint weapons unplayable. Epic already has enough issues, lets not add to them due to some vague issue with the standard game.

I actually played this way originally due to a poor reading of the rules. While they are clear, it was still easy to misinterpret.

Based on that experience I can say it unbalanced the game play. To many chances to evade at range 3, too much chance to hit at range 1. It is much better as the rules are written.

I do agree that munitions don't play as well as one shot and done, but it probably depends on the upgrade. There is only so much payload that can be carried.

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.

I know what you are trying to say. To make cannons no different than a primary weapon. I am fine with cannons having the same amount of dice at all the ranges they are able to shoot at. No need to change the cannons. Why would you want to make the cannons crappy weapons?

No, no and no...Ruins the mechanics, pointage and balance of things. Cannons are fine, missiles and torps perhaps need something to make it more worthwhile. Honestly don't see why people keep suggesting things that outright seems even worse than the mechanic already in place. Makes me feel that some people just complain for the sake of complaining...I am surprised at the amount of "FIX" threads and even more bewildered by most of the suggestions to "fix" the problems. For months me and my bro have been thinking of ways to make the Interceptors and certain ships more viable against turreted ships and when they finally spoiled the auto-thrusters card, we both were pleasantly surprised that we almost arrived at the same solution as the game developers including the point cost verbatim. This is not to say that auto-thrusters is the perfect solution to it but that card for example shows how developers think of everything that a single card can affect.

If you lose the defense bonus to cannons, you will only see people dropping HLCs, an already niche upgrade even further and make turrets even more powerful. At the risk of sounding arrogant, sometimes its not a game flaw that is in question but rather the player's ability to overcome a build. If all else fails even after superior play, then and only then can something be deemed broken or close to enough for the powers that be to remedy the problem. Not before.

Some people who may have replied a simple "No" might be simply wise enough to know that such ideas in the first place is foolish enough to warrant a longer answer. Some people like me might have few minutes of my day to even explain the reasons for such.

You are also paying points on top of needing to have the option to use cannons and certain secondary weapons as an added cost. If you punish it further, people will just stop bringing them and go on EPTs and or swarms. Don't see that helping anything really.

I think at this point we need to wait and see what the new cannons, and the new turret will do to the landscape. Im seeing a lot baseless negativity on them, and we all need to just wait and see what happens when Wave 6 hits, cause the entire landscape will be completely different. Well, Ordinance will still suck, but thats a different topic.

So i'll have to vote a tentative no.

BUT, is anyone going to really argue that cannons are fine currently? Ion cannons see occasional use in a niche role, the only time i've ever seen an Autoblaster was in a gimmick Ten Numb w/Marksmanship an Jan giving him an extra dice. (it was terrible FYI), and turrets are present on only two Rebel ships, only one of which (named HWKs) are fielded with any seriousness. And honestly i think the HLC are a little too good.

So i think the OP has some valid points, but we'll just have to buckle in and see where we are in 6 months.

I'm gonna say no... But also yes. Because variety.

The current cannons are well bakkanced at their prices. For instance: putting 2 HLCs on a pair of Defenders means forgoing a Black Squadron tie pilot. In exchange for that, I need something with a bit of oomph. 4 dice alone aren't quite doing it. 4 dice and removing the defensive range bonus does it pretty nicely.

The other cannons are in a similar position.

However!

I think it could be interest to have a cannon that is 3 attk, range 1-3. At range 1, double the attack dice, at range 3, double the defense dice.

Or maybe on-hit effects could vary depending on range. At range 1 you take normal damage + ionization. At range 3 you take normal damage. Range 3 might be 1 damage + 1 stress token.

I've been wondering for a while what design space is available to make the game deeper without making power creep. This sort of thinking can point the way.

HLC is an extra attack die but not at range 1 at the cost of the ability to crit and seven points.

HLC is an extra attack die but not at range 1 at the cost of the ability to crit and seven points.

It has to have a fixed big cost to overcome the possibility of 2 attack ships having access to itIt also has the possibility to give 2 extra attack dice, like for example has happened to the Outrider, and in the future the Scyk.

Also, we have to take into account than having 4 attack dice, is not exactly the same as just one extra dice, because attacks are always an interaction between agility dice and attack dice. It's not the same to upgrade a ship from 2 to 3 attack dice on cost/efficiency, than 3 to 4 dice, because the chances to overcome the agility increases exponentionally, not on a lineal fashion.

Edit - Also, i agree with you that there is no neccessity to nerf the HLC, i am just giving feedback.

It has to have a fixed big cost to overcome the possibility of 2 attack ships having access to it

For the first three waves of its existence cannons were 3 attack ship exclusives. (Firespray, Lambda, B-wing, TIE defender.

There are two 2 attack ships that can use the cannon slot and they both pay a premium for it.

The Outrider has to pay 12 points for its HLC turret. If it doesn't use the Outrider title then it pays for the HLC with the antisynergy in flying style between a powerful front arc weapon and a pea shooter turret. Besides, it could be argued that the cannonless Outrider (Vrill aside) costs too much: people figured the pre-fix TIE advanced costs too much for 2 dice and have the same issue with highly upgraded A-wings. A 30pt range ship with only 2 dice doesn't have much going for it.

The Scyk has to pay an extra two points for any secondary weapon and is a very fragile platform.

No, no and no...Ruins the mechanics, pointage and balance of things. Cannons are fine, missiles and torps perhaps need something to make it more worthwhile. Honestly don't see why people keep suggesting things that outright seems even worse than the mechanic already in place. Makes me feel that some people just complain for the sake of complaining...I am surprised at the amount of "FIX" threads and even more bewildered by most of the suggestions to "fix" the problems. For months me and my bro have been thinking of ways to make the Interceptors and certain ships more viable against turreted ships and when they finally spoiled the auto-thrusters card, we both were pleasantly surprised that we almost arrived at the same solution as the game developers including the point cost verbatim. This is not to say that auto-thrusters is the perfect solution to it but that card for example shows how developers think of everything that a single card can affect.

If you lose the defense bonus to cannons, you will only see people dropping HLCs, an already niche upgrade even further and make turrets even more powerful. At the risk of sounding arrogant, sometimes its not a game flaw that is in question but rather the player's ability to overcome a build. If all else fails even after superior play, then and only then can something be deemed broken or close to enough for the powers that be to remedy the problem. Not before.

Some people who may have replied a simple "No" might be simply wise enough to know that such ideas in the first place is foolish enough to warrant a longer answer. Some people like me might have few minutes of my day to even explain the reasons for such.

I was prepared to start a new thread commenting on all the "fix" threads, but this comment takes care of what I was going to say and a lot more!

I wouldnt mind seeing a ept or some kinda mod that makes secondary weapons act like a primary.

HLC is an extra attack die but not at range 1 at the cost of the ability to crit and seven points.

It has to have a fixed big cost to overcome the possibility of 2 attack ships having access to itIt also has the possibility to give 2 extra attack dice, like for example has happened to the Outrider, and in the future the Scyk.

Also, we have to take into account than having 4 attack dice, is not exactly the same as just one extra dice, because attacks are always an interaction between agility dice and attack dice. It's not the same to upgrade a ship from 2 to 3 attack dice on cost/efficiency, than 3 to 4 dice, because the chances to overcome the agility increases exponentionally, not on a lineal fashion.

Edit - Also, i agree with you that there is no neccessity to nerf the HLC, i am just giving feedback.

I know I am the minority in this opinion, but I'm starting to see cannon power creep and it looks like turret HLC at 9 points and hole-less critical hit cannon at 6 point are becoming a steal.

Then maybe your issue is the cost of the Outrider title, not the actual cannons.

I know I am the minority in this opinion, but I'm starting to see cannon power creep and it looks like turret HLC at 9 points and hole-less critical hit cannon at 6 point are becoming a steal.

2pts is the cost of heavy Scyk. Outrider costs 5. Mangler Cannon Turret'd set you back 9 points, Heavy Laser Cannon Turret costs 12.