...snip...

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?

When ordnance, for the most part, requires a TL on the target it is to be used against that is enough to differentiate it from cannons for me.

Aside from the outrageous cost how would non-discarding ordnance be all that different from loading up a TIE Bomber and giving it Munitions Failsafe just for good measure?

Aside from the outrageous cost

The cost is all the difference you need.

20 points worth or ord plus MF vs 4 or 5?

Returning briefly to the idea myself and others have been promoting, being ignore evade results for missiles and ignore shields for torps, I'm wondering about the whole issue of one-shotting things.

Consider again a concussion missile vs. an interceptor. It's true that with the missile's bonus it would be 3+ hits most of the time, requiring the Interceptor to have a perfect roll to not die. But this would change the meta in two ways that, in my opinion, might be fun.

First, take an evade! It seems like no one does this anymore. This means that with an evade token, the interceptor only has to roll 2 evades, spend the token, and a 3-hit missile misses and is gone forever. Or, if it hits, the missile "hits" but the evade token is allowed to reduce damage, the interceptor takes 2 damage and barely survives. I for one would like to see the evade action become more valuable in the meta.

Second, if a ship with a missile target locks your interceptor, don't let it shoot you! This would resemble the "real life" combat (at least as portrayed in various movies) after which Star Wars is modeled. By this I mean a pilot realizing "I'm target locked, better get the hell out of here!" I think the fear of ordinance would force arc-dodgers to do that more often. The target lock becomes more valuable and more important - if my missile carrier target locks you and you fly behind me, suddenly I'm vulnerable to what's ahead, having used my action already and therefore not being focused or having an evade to protect myself.

This would force players to make tough decisions based on ordinance. Sure, some interceptor's will die. That happens. But players are paying 4+ points for the missiles to make it happen. And I can always load up 3 Z-95's with concussion missiles to corner and one-shot an interceptor, but that costs me 48 points to take out ONE ship. Tough choices must be made.

I realize FFG will probably never do something like this. But for those of you who like the idea, please let me know ways it might be improved, and let me know your own play test results. I'm a very casual player anyway. I want a fun star wars game to play at home, and it isn't fun when my torpedoes (which the games/movies/books tell me should be powerful) do nothing.

How about this.

(Ordinance: Missiles and Torpedoes)

Enhanced Ordinance Launcher (Perhaps a better name)

Modification:

0 Pts

All Ordinance carried counts as 2 squad points less then the listed cost to a minimum of 1.

This fixes all ordinance carrying ships, but forces them to use a modification.

But this would change the meta in two ways that, in my opinion, might be fun.

Interceptors and Ties get one shotted to easily as is. Anything that makes that even more likely to happen makes them even less effective in a competitive event.

If you want to do some sort of house rule, that's fine do whatever the people agree to and forget balance. But if you're going to make suggestions on how to fix something for everyone that's something else.

But this would change the meta in two ways that, in my opinion, might be fun.

Interceptors and Ties get one shotted to easily as is. Anything that makes that even more likely to happen makes them even less effective in a competitive event.

If you want to do some sort of house rule, that's fine do whatever the people agree to and forget balance. But if you're going to make suggestions on how to fix something for everyone that's something else.

They're a dangerous thing, my suggestions. The thing is (in my brain, a place which is simultaneously offensively absurd and apparently rational) Imperial ships can also take missiles. With the TIE Advanced fix there's likely going to be an increase in its use. The Defender takes missiles as well, obviously the Bomber, and others. TIE Swarms with too many interceptors and TIE's might be less effective, but FFG has deliberately made this so in the past anyway. Imperial lists may simply be forced to take a few more hearty ships that can also wield ordinance.

I am making these suggestions as something that would be thematic and fun for anyone interested, and although I would PERSONALLY enjoy seeing this type of thing be a permanent change in the game, I can't make it happen, and my desires should not be offensive or dangerous to anyone else.

Imperial lists may simply be forced to take a few more hearty ships that can also wield ordinance.

So your answer is... Don't even try to make Tie Fighters, Interceptors or any other ship that's primary defense is evade dice useful. Effectively those ships won't even exist anymore, because the only thing they'll do in this missile heavy meta is blow up.

Imperial lists may simply be forced to take a few more hearty ships that can also wield ordinance.

So your answer is... Don't even try to make Tie Fighters, Interceptors or any other ship that's primary defense is evade dice useful. Effectively those ships won't even exist anymore, because the only thing they'll do in this missile heavy meta is blow up.

Not exactly. First, I know one-shots will be more likely, but I've already addressed this above. It would simply change some things. Also, you are assuming these ships will get one-shotted all the time. They won't. So yes, in a missile-heavy meta they'll blow up - or they won't. Players can still field lots of TIE's and Interceptors for relatively low costs. 3 Academy pilots are still 3 ships for 36 points. If you assume the worst and say they all get one-shotted by my 3 Z-95's with Concussion missiles, that's 12 points I've lost for the missiles alone, and I'm left with naked Z-95's that cost 36 points. You are still flying around that 12 points elsewhere. You are also assuming I don't get destroyed before firing, that the opponent's evade tokens or other measures all fail, etc. My point is simply that more powerful missiles would be something that both sides can benefit from, so it would be more attractive for an Imperial player to take a ship with a missile both because missiles are more powerful and some TIE's are more vulnerable. I don't think 3-hull ships would be completely eliminated because lists would develop to crush missile-carrying lists, and so on. It would adjust the meta as all the super lists do, but since missiles can be carried by a variety of ships in a variety of different lists, they simply become something everyone needs to watch out for. It's a bigger punch if it hits, and a bigger letdown if it misses, and you still have to spend the points on ordinance.

Edit: Additionally no list can take one missile per enemy ship if the enemy list is a TIE swarm. In no way does this powerful missile idea make TIE's useless. The most I could take is 6 Z-95's each with concussion missiles. I wish I had the skill and the luck to kill 6 TIE's before losing anything, because yes, my 6 naked Z's would destroy the remaining 2 TIE's. But I don't think that's likely to happen. And if you replace 2 or 3 of those TIE's with something more powerful, you still have a decent list and a ship that can probably crush many of my Z's, likely before they launch missiles. My ideal fix (whether it be the ideas proposed or others) is not to make a list based on missiles only effective, but to make the missiles themselves more effective, for any type of list.

Also, you are assuming these ships will get one-shotted all the time. They won't.

Odds of killing a Tie Interceptor or Fighter with a concussion missile is about 60-75%... Why would anyone take a ship that is going to blow up 3 out of 4 times from one attack?

Players can still field lots of TIE's and Interceptors for relatively low costs.

People don't field Interceptors right now, because they blow up too easily for the points. How is making that more likely going to improve anything?

Taking your 3 Z-95 example. You have killed 36 points of Ties for 12 points, putting you 24 points ahead. It's not like those Z-95's are going to blow up as soon as you let fly the missiles. They'll still be there until they're killed, only now you have a 24 point advantage over the other guy.

Yeah, a the whole one shot thing doesn't change the wheelhouse of the TIE fighter or interceptor. They're still great at what they do. These changes would enhance the options for the other classes. It blows open options for many, many ships in the game.

Yeah, a the whole one shot thing doesn't change the wheelhouse of the TIE fighter or interceptor.

Which is... Never used in the case of the Interceptor, or only used in a swarm for the Fighter. A swarm that loses half or more of its ships before it can fire is not an effective swarm.

Oh lets see how effective Phantoms are at 40 odd points when a single bad roll is enough to one shot them. Or you know making Interceptors which are already seen as too fragile for the points even more so.

Or how about those 50+ point YT-2400's that are one shot by a 5 point torpedo...

Well, if there was a way to one-shot a YT-2400 and I was flying it, I would never let it get within range 1 of something that could kill it, if I could help it.

Anyway, you are again assuming everything goes absolutely wrong for the TIE flyer. I understand this fix could have some problems, but I'm simply saying I am so unsatisfied with the current mechanic for ordinance I'm willing to try it. Think about 4 bombers (PS2) with a couple of missiles each. I like my odds with a list using only interceptors trying to out-fly those things. But I can see how it would turn the game into whichever player strikes first having a huge advantage.

Anyway, until FFG tries to make ordinance more viable (maybe a mod reducing its cost for certain ships) I'll just have to pretend that proton torpedoes hitting a TIE fighter and doing 1 damage must have just blown up near it, after hitting my table.

I would never let it get within range 1 of something that could kill it, if I could help it.

Given the number of times people have had a Outrider with a HLC shut down completely because they can't get the other ship out of range 1 makes it clear that it's not something you always have the ability to do.

Plus all it takes is 1 Direct Hit! and you do it with a normal torpedo at range 3.

but I'm simply saying I am so unsatisfied with the current mechanic for ordinance I'm willing to try it.

And so am I. But that doesn't mean the answer is making Ord that OP'ed, and/or ask for rules changes which FFG is not inclined to do.

There was a modification above that would with a few tweaks seem to make ord worth taking yet wouldn't make it OP'ed. Where <evades> become <focus> for missiles and <crits> bypass shields. Plus it wouldn't require changing any rules.

What if every list just got X points of warheads for free, selected before the game? An ordnance sideboard, if you will. X probably is 4-6 points. This encourages ordnance use because it's free, but also emphasizes the flexibility of warhead loads compared to cannons. If a ship has an ordnance slot, it moves from something you'll never use to an opportunity.

What if every list just got X points of warheads for free, selected before the game?

And what happens when your whole list is ships that can't take warheads?

Like say a Phantom and 2 named Interceptors, or a tie swarm. Those lists would be X points behind, just because they lack a upgrade slot.

Vanor, I appreciate your position, but it does assume that every shot with a missile is hitting with max hit rolls and no evade tokens.

I haven't put much thought into it but what if there was a 1 or 2 point modification that made missiles and torpedoes do double damage. You'd still have to hit with them.

Vanor, I appreciate your position, but it does assume that every shot with a missile is hitting with max hit rolls and no evade tokens.

No not really.

You have a better than 50% chance of rolling 2 hits with 4 dice even without a focus, and concussion missiles let you convert a <blank> into a <hit>. That means over 50% chance odds of 3 <hits> if you have a focus the chance goes up quite a bit.

That's opposed to the defender which has fairly poor odds of 3 evades even with an evade token. Since all evades get canceled, and that includes the one from the token, if a Tie can't come up with 3 evades, then it will die around 50-75% of the time depending on if the attacker has an focus or not.

No need to roll max hits, in fact you only need 2, and all the defender has to do is miss 1 or 2 evade rolls and it's dead.

Again because it seems like a good fix to me.

The Modification mentioned a page or two ago, that turns <evades> into <focus> for missiles and makes <crits> bypass shields could very well be the best fix. Doesn't require changing rules which will not happen, and doesn't make ord nearly as OP'ed.

I think there is a misunderstanding about the missile concept. My understanding of the proposed rule is that a missile is fired and rolls three hits. The defender is forced to cancel any evade rolls, but took an evade token the previous phase. The token cancels one of the hits rolled, so the defender suffers two damage and is not destroyed. I'm not quite a proponent of the "if it hits, it hits at full force."

Aside from the outrageous cost

The cost is all the difference you need.

20 points worth or ord plus MF vs 4 or 5?

And as we all know the cost difference between cannons and ordnance is one of the major factors in making ordnance a relatively poor choice. Ordnance may pack a slightly bigger "bang" than cannons but that is just with one shot and a few more hurdles to jump through. A problem with pricing is simply that there isn't a lot of "wiggle room" when it comes to pricing ordnance as it can potentially go from "too expensive" to "too cheap" all over a single point.

To me complaints about a multi-use/non-discarding ordnance system not being "different enough" from a cannon is absurd. If you have a ship that can carry enough warheads the use of those weapons will basically be identical to the use of a cannon when it comes to a dogfight.

Vanor, I appreciate your position, but it does assume that every shot with a missile is hitting with max hit rolls and no evade tokens.

The proposed fix is a massive nerf to interceptors, defenders, and E-wings but a net boost to Falcons and Z-95s. If that is the fix that you think is appropriate given the current state of the game, I can only conclude you are playing a different game to me.

ETA: if you are wondering why VanorDM's numbers are different to mine, I would say it is because he either hasn't included the focus token or hasn't calculated the blank-to-hit conversion properly.

I think there is a misunderstanding about the missile concept. My understanding of the proposed rule is that a missile is fired and rolls three hits. The defender is forced to cancel any evade rolls, but took an evade token the previous phase. The token cancels one of the hits rolled, so the defender suffers two damage and is not destroyed. I'm not quite a proponent of the "if it hits, it hits at full force."

Even assuming the evade token, that's still a 74% chance of needing a perfect roll to avoid instakill.

Again though, the assumption is based on best case. Y'all are thinking in a linear sense. ship x is flying at ship y. But we know that isn't what the game is about. Now, even To get that perfect shot, a player has to have the following gates cleared: target lock, range 2-3 target, focus. That's just on the missile carrier. And there is a lot the other player can do about it. Your 74% is a bad stat because it ignores what interceptors do best: arc dodge. It assumes that the missile carrying player is playing against a moron. So I'm assuming that we are indeed playing a different game.

In fact, all your stat illustrates is what dice can roll. Not an average outcome of an engagement.

Again though, the assumption is based on best case. Y'all are thinking in a linear sense. ship x is flying at ship y. But we know that isn't what the game is about. Now, even To get that perfect shot, a player has to have the following gates cleared: target lock, range 2-3 target, focus. That's just on the missile carrier. And there is a lot the other player can do about it. Your 74% is a bad stat because it ignores what interceptors do best: arc dodge. It assumes that the missile carrying player is playing against a moron. So I'm assuming that we are indeed playing a different game.

In fact, all your stat illustrates is what dice can roll. Not an average outcome of an engagement.

Cool, all I need to do then is make sure my opponent can never take a shot at my Interceptors. Seriously? If you had just one ship, that might be reasonable. Unfortunately, my opponents tend to use more than one ship so they have more than one firing arc. Damned inconsiderate of them.

I always felt that discarding munitions for one shot was kinda off. Xwings carry what 9 proton torps? Sure you can say it would make have multiple torps or missile slots pointless but then you could equip one or two and cover your bases for what munition you will need.

But that's just my humble opinion.

Not if you can fire both torpedoes or Missile simultaneously, That would be pretty!