I don't like the idea of MIssile/Torpedo ordinance not being discarded. Nobody would ever use primary attacks much anymore. Missiles are a fine part of aerial combat but without the fun of getting somebody in your sights and shooting em down, it feels more bland and sterile.

Just like nobody ever uses primary attacks when equipped with a cannon upgrade?

In so many ways non-discarding ordnance effectively becomes a cannon in a different upgrade slot. It may have some other cost associated with using it but that is what it would be.

It's funny when I hear talk about how much ordnance some ships carry. Am I the only one who played the X-Wing series and thought that the A-Wing was the ordnance delivery system of choice? If memory serves it carried as much or more than ANY other Rebel ship including the almighty B-Wing.

I don't like the idea of MIssile/Torpedo ordinance not being discarded. Nobody would ever use primary attacks much anymore. Missiles are a fine part of aerial combat but without the fun of getting somebody in your sights and shooting em down, it feels more bland and sterile.

With the solution posed by Randito, myself and many others there would still be plenty of times people would be forced to use primary attacks. Consider a cluster missile. You would be forced to use your primary in all the following situations:

1) You do not have a target lock on the ship you're trying to shoot

2) You are at range 3

3) You are at range 1 with a three attack ship and would rather roll the four dice (rare, I know)

3) You want to use your action for something other than re-arming (such as acquiring a target lock [see point 1]).

Unless a ship has push the limit or is Darth Vader (in which case they would be consuming a huge portion of your points after the missile cost, PTL/Vader and the re-arming mechanism), no one would be able to fire missiles in consecutive turns since they would need to burn an action on re-arming.

Finally, another reason this fix works is all FFG has to do is release a new rule card. The cards themselves don't change, there's just a small addition to the basic rules.

Won't work, because unless FFG can somehow get that card to everyone who's bought a core set, then they won't do it.That's just now how FFG works, they've made this clear in various interviews. That's why they won't just reduce the cost of a A-Wing by 2 points, or give the HWK-290 a extra attack die. Because they want everyone to have the same basic experience.Changes to how torpedoes/missiles work is not going to happen, because you then have everyone who doesn't have those new cards playing it differently then the people who do.They could release a new missile or torpedo that behaves differently, or even a whole new weapon system, but they are not going to make a fundamental change to how the existing stuff works.

Sadly i think that you are totally right with this. So this won't happen until they rerelease the whole game.

I find it a pity but i can understand it. I buy multiples of every new ship so it would not beva problem to get the card. Just not everyone is that committed to gaming and so they won't buy every ship and thus not have the rules. This would not pose a problem, just when someone that knows of this plays someone that does not, this would be a messup.

What i don't understand is that regarding the proposed tapping mechanic, there are people saying sometimes in the same sentence that the mechanic would be too strong, and then they say it would not fix the cost vs result issue because of Target lock and range requirements. What do you want? You use your torp, tap it, wait a turn, and use it again if you fulfil the requirements. Recycling is the definition of cost-efficiency so i don't get you. Paying 4 points for a single use torp that you may or may not hit is not working, while with tapping you can reuse it even if you don't hit.

We have cannons for that? Cannons are sometimes not even a lot more expensive than ordnance and get taken just because they are NOT discarded after one use. With unlimited use but just every 2nd turn, requiring TL/Focus and their all around stronger effects than cannons, ordnance would sit in a sweet spot currently not filled. Too sad it still will never happen for reasons stated above!

Fluffwise why are we even discussing? Most fighters carry a good number of missiles and torps and could fire enough times for a whole X-Wing battle if we make it pause for a turn while tapped. Snapshot and intense dogfights? Yes okay but if a fighter carries 8 torps it can as well fire 8 snapshots.

And snapshot fights is exactly what you get if you play this nonsense ignoring evades and shields. Half of the ships get unplayable, anything with less that 8 HP and more than 2 green dice is non-viable. Games would be a joust, then 3/4 of the ships are dead and then there are 2 rounds where the last survivors clean up. If that's what you want i just don't understand you. Why the hell would anyone want to mess up X-Wing like that? Then we might as well have a thermonuclear warhead for 80 points. Bomber or Y-Wing take it, it destroys every ship, asteroid and the table itself. Game over. Sorry but this ignoring any defensive rolls and shields is just the poorest proposition i have ever heard on this forum, and that's really saying a lot!

You got so upset about this. Are you ok? Sorry for messing with X-Wing like that.

Seriously though, every time you would fire at something like an Interceptor they still roll 3 evades and there's a good chance the missile doesn't hit. Then it's gone. (Ignoring Munitions Failsafe, which would pose some problems). Then even if the missile hits, and according to the mechanic I've described the evades are cancelled, you are assuming there are always 3+ hits. This won't be the case, as you would expect an unmodified 4 attack dice roll to have 2 hits. I'm not sure you understand what I was describing correctly. Evade results would only be ignored IF a missile actually hits. Same with damage ignoring shields. On average it would end up being 1 or 2 damage done in the same manner as a proton bomb (except it wouldn't be an auto-crit like the bomb). Sure, some interceptors will get one-shotted, but that happens anyway. Missiles are (theoretically) devastating attacks. And with the Imperial philosophy you have more ships to take its place.

Solutions that allow you to keep ordinance miss the fundamental problem with it: the damage is inconsistent. A B-Wing, for instance, can take both canons and torpedoes. So what do you get for the points? 6 points gets you an Advanced Proton Torpedo. It rolls 5 dice, requires a Target Lock to fire off, and can convert up to 3 blanks to focus results. So you really, really want a focus token. That's either 2 turns, or one turn with PTL. That means your B-Wing is spending a whole lot of time/vulnerability setting up a single shot-- and only at range 1. So 2 turns (or one turn and a stress token) for only 1 more die than you'd get otherwise.

On the other hand, for 7 points, you could take an HLC. The short version is it lets you toss 4 attack dice every turn. Even if you had to spend your action defensively (barrel rolling out of the way, for instance), you can still toss 4 dice. And if you've got a target lock and focus on your opponent, you can do it from any range.

So even if you never had to discard the ATP, ever, it would still not be as good as the HLC. The problem is action economy. I'm simply not getting enough damage for the restrictions.

Now, I'd be willing to take those restrictions if (on hit) I could cancel all defence dice before calculating damage. That would massively spike the damage done for all those points, and the difficulty of use.

Seriously though, every time you would fire at something like an Interceptor they still roll 3 evades and there's a good chance the missile doesn't hit. Then it's gone. (Ignoring Munitions Failsafe, which would pose some problems). Then even if the missile hits, and according to the mechanic I've described the evades are cancelled, you are assuming there are always 3+ hits. This won't be the case, as you would expect an unmodified 4 attack dice roll to have 2 hits. I'm not sure you understand what I was describing correctly. Evade results would only be ignored IF a missile actually hits. Same with damage ignoring shields. On average it would end up being 1 or 2 damage done in the same manner as a proton bomb (except it wouldn't be an auto-crit like the bomb). Sure, some interceptors will get one-shotted, but that happens anyway. Missiles are (theoretically) devastating attacks. And with the Imperial philosophy you have more ships to take its place.

I kinda hate the idea of ignoring shields. I'd actually like shields to be sturdier than hull, but don't want to clutter the design that much!

For the people in denial about faqs and erratas used to fundamentally change a rule in order to fix the existing game obviously was asleep when things like barrel roll was changed for large base ships.

Ffg could easily make ordinance fire along with a primary weapon or make ordinance able to fire outside firing arcs or do more damage outside a defenders firing arc, etc. it's neither unprecedented or difficult for them to make those types of chsnges if they see fit.

Solutions that allow you to keep ordinance miss the fundamental problem with it: the damage is inconsistent. A B-Wing, for instance, can take both canons and torpedoes. So what do you get for the points? 6 points gets you an Advanced Proton Torpedo. It rolls 5 dice, requires a Target Lock to fire off, and can convert up to 3 blanks to focus results. So you really, really want a focus token. That's either 2 turns, or one turn with PTL. That means your B-Wing is spending a whole lot of time/vulnerability setting up a single shot-- and only at range 1. So 2 turns (or one turn and a stress token) for only 1 more die than you'd get otherwise.

On the other hand, for 7 points, you could take an HLC. The short version is it lets you toss 4 attack dice every turn. Even if you had to spend your action defensively (barrel rolling out of the way, for instance), you can still toss 4 dice. And if you've got a target lock and focus on your opponent, you can do it from any range.

So even if you never had to discard the ATP, ever, it would still not be as good as the HLC. The problem is action economy. I'm simply not getting enough damage for the restrictions.

Now, I'd be willing to take those restrictions if (on hit) I could cancel all defence dice before calculating damage. That would massively spike the damage done for all those points, and the difficulty of use.

That's a poor comparison. An ATP's analogue in cannon world is the autoblaster (short range, very deadly).

A better comparison to the HLC would be a regular old proton torpedo. 3 less points, requires you to possess and burn a target lock, but actually gives you a higher chance of crits with your base roll while the HLC gives you a zero chance (obviously gunner or target lock can change that). Currently the HLC is only a much better choice because the torps are one use only.

Give me the ability to re-arm and given the point differential, I could very much see myself taking the proton torpedoes. Especially since I could then put PTL or Advanced Sensors on my B-Wing for the difference in points.

Finally, another reason this fix works is all FFG has to do is release a new rule card. The cards themselves don't change, there's just a small addition to the basic rules.

Won't work, because unless FFG can somehow get that card to everyone who's bought a core set, then they won't do it.That's just now how FFG works, they've made this clear in various interviews. That's why they won't just reduce the cost of a A-Wing by 2 points, or give the HWK-290 a extra attack die. Because they want everyone to have the same basic experience.Changes to how torpedoes/missiles work is not going to happen, because you then have everyone who doesn't have those new cards playing it differently then the people who do.They could release a new missile or torpedo that behaves differently, or even a whole new weapon system, but they are not going to make a fundamental change to how the existing stuff works.

Sadly i think that you are totally right with this. So this won't happen until they rerelease the whole game.

I find it a pity but i can understand it. I buy multiples of every new ship so it would not beva problem to get the card. Just not everyone is that committed to gaming and so they won't buy every ship and thus not have the rules. This would not pose a problem, just when someone that knows of this plays someone that does not, this would be a messup.

What i don't understand is that regarding the proposed tapping mechanic, there are people saying sometimes in the same sentence that the mechanic would be too strong, and then they say it would not fix the cost vs result issue because of Target lock and range requirements. What do you want? You use your torp, tap it, wait a turn, and use it again if you fulfil the requirements. Recycling is the definition of cost-efficiency so i don't get you. Paying 4 points for a single use torp that you may or may not hit is not working, while with tapping you can reuse it even if you don't hit.

We have cannons for that? Cannons are sometimes not even a lot more expensive than ordnance and get taken just because they are NOT discarded after one use. With unlimited use but just every 2nd turn, requiring TL/Focus and their all around stronger effects than cannons, ordnance would sit in a sweet spot currently not filled. Too sad it still will never happen for reasons stated above!

Fluffwise why are we even discussing? Most fighters carry a good number of missiles and torps and could fire enough times for a whole X-Wing battle if we make it pause for a turn while tapped. Snapshot and intense dogfights? Yes okay but if a fighter carries 8 torps it can as well fire 8 snapshots.

And snapshot fights is exactly what you get if you play this nonsense ignoring evades and shields. Half of the ships get unplayable, anything with less that 8 HP and more than 2 green dice is non-viable. Games would be a joust, then 3/4 of the ships are dead and then there are 2 rounds where the last survivors clean up. If that's what you want i just don't understand you. Why the hell would anyone want to mess up X-Wing like that? Then we might as well have a thermonuclear warhead for 80 points. Bomber or Y-Wing take it, it destroys every ship, asteroid and the table itself. Game over. Sorry but this ignoring any defensive rolls and shields is just the poorest proposition i have ever heard on this forum, and that's really saying a lot!

You got so upset about this. Are you ok? Sorry for messing with X-Wing like that.

Seriously though, every time you would fire at something like an Interceptor they still roll 3 evades and there's a good chance the missile doesn't hit. Then it's gone. (Ignoring Munitions Failsafe, which would pose some problems). Then even if the missile hits, and according to the mechanic I've described the evades are cancelled, you are assuming there are always 3+ hits. This won't be the case, as you would expect an unmodified 4 attack dice roll to have 2 hits. I'm not sure you understand what I was describing correctly. Evade results would only be ignored IF a missile actually hits. Same with damage ignoring shields. On average it would end up being 1 or 2 damage done in the same manner as a proton bomb (except it wouldn't be an auto-crit like the bomb). Sure, some interceptors will get one-shotted, but that happens anyway. Missiles are (theoretically) devastating attacks. And with the Imperial philosophy you have more ships to take its place.

Thank the Force it's not an idea i would see FFG introduce anyway.

And by the way i am not upset or anything. It's just that i find this an incredibly bad idea. I have not said that to anyone yet when talking about possible changes and always tried to be at least a bit constructive. But this is absolutely not the fix ordnance needs therefore you can of course go on with this but i am out of this part of the discussion because i don't want to think any further in this direction. Then i'd prefer they did nothing about ordnance before this.

Your position seems contradictory in some ways and not sensible in others, ForceM.

The first response you state, "This is not only a much to complicated ruling," but then immediately provide a caveat example which says the opposite, "well okay (granting the rules addition is not that complex)." The real point you wanted to make was that this addition would be "very hard to introduce if it's not written on the card." I disagree. A simple print for a card defining missiles and torpedoes (just like Ion weapons or Boost) would need to be created and added to future reprints for any ship using missiles or torpedoes. That is not a difficult proposition, since FFG already prints out additional rules for a great many actions and effects. This is really no different.

From your position, you also think that, "it's...not resolving the problem." How so? It maintains the variety offered by these types of ordnance and the inherent high risk/reward nature that they were designed with. It's quite clear that these weapons were meant to be a risk for the player to make. Obviously today, their point cost is the biggest obstacle to making them truly viable in a competitive setting. To mitigate having to make a title card that only increases their usefulness for certain ships, you have to think of a way that a player could justify the cost of taking a one shot card. To me, the chance that these cards might give me a better opportunity to one shot an opponent or severely damage a high shield ship, is more than enough to justify the point cost and risk.

You made a point to say that this idea still costs, "way to much," for a player to even think about taking, but then you follow that up with the great cost benefit of such a rule, "completely," annihilating an opponents ship. Isn't that always our hope with HLCs and primary attacks? Why wouldn't that be a plus for a player to have a better chance at it? It always sucks as the defender to have a ship that is one shot, but that doesn't mean this idea has no merit.

Imagine going up against a Fat Han list while equipped with missiles or torpedoes with these upgrades. Suddenly, Fat Han, while strong, is quite a risky proposition. Imagine going up against a Phantom and ACD, Horton Salm actually gives his squadron an edge against the most meta bending ship/upgrade! Missile slots on TIE Advanceds and Defenders offer a vibrant option to list building. Or imagine a world where the Chardaan Refit isn't necessarily auto-include. This idea would definitely have those effects.

Missile bays, tapping, turning, etc, all seem really vanilla and what they do is step into design space that is filled by the almighty cannon (for cheaper!). Who would take an HLC for 7 on a Bwing when a player could take a torpedo for nearly half off!

Trust me, I'm not a big believer in the ideas on this forum actually influencing game design, but of all the propositions this is thematic, rewarding and different enough from the other pieces of ordnance, that I think it would be a big benefit to the meta if missiles and torpedoes looked more like what a few of us proposed.

Two things to think about with the "ignore defender roll on hit" idea:

This would not include evade tokens. Evades would still be useful for damage mitigation. Suddenly that action gets a solid upgrade by being significantly different from focus.

Also: if the attacker gets 2 (hit) results and the defender only gets one (evade) result, the defender is only going to suffer 2 damage. It increases potential damage, but you'd still have to role well!

Two things to think about with the "ignore defender roll on hit" idea:

This would not include evade tokens. Evades would still be useful for damage mitigation. Suddenly that action gets a solid upgrade by being significantly different from focus.

Also: if the attacker gets 2 (hit) results and the defender only gets one (evade) result, the defender is only going to suffer 2 damage. It increases potential damage, but you'd still have to role well!

An issue with saying that "damage" could ignore green dice but not ignore Evade tokens is that it seems, at least in one recent example, like the two are counted the same way. That recent example, the FAQ on Autoblaster which now specify/clarify that Evade tokens can not be used to cancel [boom] results any more than [squiggles] from dice can.

I can understand the disappointment with ordnance that hitting with it and causing damage are all covered by the same event. I mean I certainly remember one-shotting Bombers with Concussion missiles back in the X-Wing days but that just doesn't happen in this X-Wing game.

Here's a suggestion.

Modification card (1point) Munitions Re-Acquire Target

During the end phase any munitions that failed to hit Re-acquire their target and attack. (This is not a new attack)

So if you dodged, at least you get to finish your combat phase.

It's thematic, because any missile/torp that misses requires time to turn around and come back at you.

(Not a new Attack) unlike gunner, so you can't spend an aquired T/L from FCS or Cracken. But I reckon you could spend a focus.

Or for 3 points. It does work like Gunner. So you can spend an aquired target lock and you can even attack a new target.

With regards to the ideas of ordnance bypassing shields or ignoring evades, I think such abilities would be much too powerful. More realistic would be for ordnance to have the following abilities:

- Missiles: After the defence dice are rolled, you may change a <crit> to a <hit> in order to cancel an evade result.

- Torpedoes: If the attack hits, you may cancel any <crit> results. If you do, deal a face down damage card to the target for each <crit> result cancelled in this way.

Basically, a missile crit would be able to absorb 2 evades, and a torpedo crit would be able to punch through shields (although only doing normal damage in the process).

That said, I don't think FFG will straight up add extra rules as an amendment. The barrel rolling large ships was slightly different, as before the YT-2400 it was only possible as a side effect of combining different expansion packs. The above would be pretty cool either added as a modification (upgraded ordnance) however

The thing to keep in mind with fixes through a modification card is that it will then block the fix being used in conjunction with any other modification. Is this going to be an issue?

Two things to think about with the "ignore defender roll on hit" idea:

This would not include evade tokens. Evades would still be useful for damage mitigation. Suddenly that action gets a solid upgrade by being significantly different from focus.

Also: if the attacker gets 2 (hit) results and the defender only gets one (evade) result, the defender is only going to suffer 2 damage. It increases potential damage, but you'd still have to role well!

I don't like the idea of MIssile/Torpedo ordinance not being discarded. Nobody would ever use primary attacks much anymore. Missiles are a fine part of aerial combat but without the fun of getting somebody in your sights and shooting em down, it feels more bland and sterile.

Just like nobody ever uses primary attacks when equipped with a cannon upgrade?

In so many ways non-discarding ordnance effectively becomes a cannon in a different upgrade slot. It may have some other cost associated with using it but that is what it would be.

And that's exactly what I'm afraid of. the discarding is what makes torpedoes and missiles unique and separates them from cannons thematically and mechanically. They need to feel different or whats the point?

For the people in denial about faqs and erratas used to fundamentally change a rule in order to fix the existing game obviously was asleep when things like barrel roll was changed for large base ships.

Not at all, since no ship prior to the YT-2400 had a native barrel roll on it. So the only way a YT-1300 or Shuttle can barrel roll is if you put an upgrade on it. Then the rules for the new barrel roll come with the YT-2400.

So no the change to barrel roll doesn't actually prove anything.

it's neither unprecedented or difficult for them to make those types of chsnges if they see fit.

Actually yes it is, since they have yet to change the way any card actually works in any fundamental way, unless the card is somehow in error like Expert Handling was.

But more to the point, they clearly don't see fit, because that's not how they work, again go watch the interviews with them and you'll see that the only way they wish to make changes is though upgrades and not through changing existing cards.

Title: tbd

Type: Modification

Cost: 0

At the start of the combat phase If you have a Missile or Torpedo upgrade equipped, You may acquire a free Target Lock.

I like this, but I would change to something like this.

Ordinance Computer

Modification

0 Pts

At the start of your turn in the combat phase if you have a missile or torpedo upgrade equipped, you may acquire a free target lock if you don't already have one. This can only be used to fire ordinance equipped. (Missiles and Torps)

A lot of these ideas make munitions failsafe totally pointless...

Thinking more about the "Missiles ignore evades, Torpedoes ignore shields" idea, you could tone it down a little and still have the missiles pretty useful.

Advanced Guidance Systems: (X points)

The target of a Missile attack changes all (Evade results) to blanks.

(Critical damage die symbol) results from a Torpedo attack may not be cancelled by shields.

Some better wording is probably necessary, but against missile attacks, tokens would still be effective, either by negating a hit or turning eyes into Evades. The Torpedo effect would make Protons a tool against heavy ships.

Maybe a simple fix would just be a faq change saying "X2" or X whatever" being however many shots you get with the warhead before you have to discard.

A lot of these ideas make munitions failsafe totally pointless...

Only if the re-arming mechanism was a modification. If you could take them both, it would actually save you the trouble of burning an action on re-arming if you missed.

Advanced Guidance Systems: (X points)

The target of a Missile attack changes all (Evade results) to blanks.

(Critical damage die symbol) results from a Torpedo attack may not be cancelled by shields.

I like this with one minor tweak. It should change <evade> to <focus>, otherwise you once again end up in a place where Tie Fighters or interceptors are subject to a pretty high chance of being one shot.

Consider that with 4 dice you got about a 54% chance of rolling 2 hits, even without a TL or Focus, with a concussion missile that means 3 hits almost every time. Add a TL or Focus and the odds go up to 80%. So you're looking at a very good chance almost a given of one shotting a Tie Fighter or Interceptor with a conc missile.

Prockets would be even more deadly when start throwing 5 dice with a focus every time.

If you change <evade> to <focus> then the defender still has a chance of surviving the attack without needing to throw 3 evades or die.

The idea of any <crits> ignoring shields for Torpedos seems to be fairly balanced, at first look anyway.

I like that. It really makes holding Focus a requirement for not getting pasted.

For the people in denial about faqs and erratas used to fundamentally change a rule in order to fix the existing game obviously was asleep when things like barrel roll was changed for large base ships.

Not at all, since no ship prior to the YT-2400 had a native barrel roll on it. So the only way a YT-1300 or Shuttle can barrel roll is if you put an upgrade on it. Then the rules for the new barrel roll come with the YT-2400.So no the change to barrel roll doesn't actually prove anything.

The fact it wasn't a native ship ability has absolutely nothing to do with anything. It was a clear tactic used on the falcon long before dash was a thought. That fact is ffg fundamentally changed a rule in game specifically to deal with this issue. That's the point I was making. That fact it came from an upgrade card has no Barring at all to the fact they deliberately and intentionally changed a rule in game.

The fact it wasn't a native ship ability has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Yes actually it does, it has everything to do with it. It may not seem like there's any difference to you, but there is to FFG. They have a method they follow, and not changing the way existing cards or abilities work is part of that method.

So they will not use a FAQ or Errata to just change how something in this game works, unless something is actually broken, such as Expert Handling.

They've made this stance very clear in their interviews. For example, they said that one thing they regret was making the HWK-290 with only 1 attack, but changing it at this point isn't going to happen without some sort of upgrade.

They said that if the Phantom proved to be too powerful with 4 dice attack they wouldn't simply change it with errata or a FAQ. If they refuse to change something that is OP'ed like that, then there is no way they'd make such a massive change to how missiles or torpedoes work.

They will not change how a card works. They will not change how much a card costs. They will not add rules that change fundamental systems, unless there is some way to get that information out to everyone who buys X-Wing stuff, but the FAQ doesn't count for that. Again this is the stance that comes directly from Alex and Frank, and not me, if you don't believe me then go watch their interviews yourself.

I actually wish it was otherwise, but this is the method that FFG uses. The cards that were in the Tie Advanced when it first came out will always work exactly the same way they did then. This is the stance FFG has taken.

So that means any change to missiles/torpedos will come from upgrades and not a FAQ.