A new die type is not a bad idea per se. I do wonder with Imperial Assault and Armada coming out, if in hindsight the developers would have done a secondary weapon die? Green for defense. Red for primary. Blue (or other colour) for secondary attacks.

While this could be implememted, it is as tricky as changing the core rules in the faq. If a second edition of x-wing came out, I could see it then.

I've advocated using the TL and not spending it but another alternative which might be more fun and realistic is:

Roll 1 extra red die if you launch ordnance at a ship outside their attack arc.
Roll 2 extra red dice if you launch ordnance at a ship's tail (rear quadrant).

Easy to FAQ this, and it has no effect on the alpha strike so long as your enemy comes at you.

Rule and card errata that drastically change what has already been written are out of the question. You got to think from the perspective of the new player who just bought a core set as well as players who are experienced with competitive lists.

Having a player who goes to a store after playing a few games with the core set and then buys enough to make their own squadron will be rather confused if all of a sudden proton torpedoes ignore shields or he they longer has to discard their target lock / upgrade card to use concussion missiles. Because that is not what is written on their cards and their rule book.

Sure it is important for players to read the FAQ and any eratta but the point of the FAQ and eratta is NOT to change the rules, but instead to clarify and if needed expand the rules to cover certain situations that may cause confusion.

Upgrades are the simplest fix because they don't have to change words that are already printed on cards and distributed.

I do agree. However, there is already precedent for drastic changes - the autoblaster and evade tokens.

While a modification can help, it should be an option, not a must have and also must be something every ordnance laden ship can use - which means it can't be an astromech or system slot upgrade. A ship modification is the only way.

That was a drastic change but not entirely to the rule book or the card but instead to the FAQ mostly. Acording to the core set that change didn't really happened. Not until autoblasters are in play then evade tokens (and C-3PO) all of a sudden have a different mechanic. The addition to the rule book was necessary to explain that change as well as future proof the expanded rule set for other cards that have similar effect.

As far as the core set is concerned nothing has happened. Also nothing was needed to be rewritten on the cards that were effected, only the words in that card section of the FAQ was needed. If any errata changes were made they need to have the same targeted impact where core rules were not changed in a way that effects core set gameplay.

Could a new set of dice be out of the question?

Ordnance dice could be released with a new expansion and could be optional for tournaments. Perhaps legal in the big ones like Regionals. The Die facing could be something like Blank, Focus, Focus, Focus, Hit, Crit, Crit, Crit.

They would be just as inaccurate, but would reward having a focus to spend. They also would have a higher chance to cause a Crit.

Possible but take a look at the new obstacle tokens called Debris clouds and we will see a similar problem with these as with your dice suggestion.

They are not tournament legal, why? Because for one obstacles are a universal design mechanic. Just like x-wing dice and maneuver templates. They are available to both sides as long as they have the required core set. Everyone that has a core set has an asteroid set but not everyone that has a core set has a set of debris clouds.

Making a dice expansion for munitions only will have the same problem, not everyone will have access to those dice. Everyone that has a core set has attack dice and defense dice. Everyone that has a core set also have missiles and torpedo upgrades. A side expansion that includes special dice that can be used with universal mechanics will turn those universal mechanics into exclusive mechanics and will upset the balance between newer and older expansions thus bringing in paid for power creep.

Also a note there is no official ordnance/munitions in the game. There is only an upgrade named munitions failsafe which works with upgrade cards that discard in order to perform an attack and there is a critical damage card called munitions failure which discards a secondary weapon (not necessarily a missile or torpedo). Missile and torpedoes upgrades with the ATTACK header are in the official category of secondary weapons. So again an adition like that will have to state what they are for (missile and torpedo secondary weapons)

The one thing that must be kept in mind is that FFG aren't about to change their core rules or any of their existing cards. If there is a change to a card, there's no way they can supply all the legitimate owners of that card with an updated version. There's just too many copies of the core game and it's upgrades in circulation world wide to be able to make major changes.

They could release it on the website so you could print your own, but then they would have to allow home-printed cards at tournaments, and that would open another can of worms. I also see this as being counter productive to their own sales. And that's why they're in business - to sell games.

They've addressed the problems with the ships that weren't seeing much play by the introduction of the appropriate titles, but I feel that they don't seem to see a problem with ordnance cost and the way it plays, otherwise we would've seen some fix already. Some may see the title fix as being the easy way out, but it's actually a quite logical way to go about it. It doesn't require any additions to the FAQ as errata, and it doesn't require any card change or rule change. And both title seem to have gone down quite well with the player base.

I don't think they would bother to introduce any upgrade or fix unless they've checked almost every permutation that could be associated with it. They don't do "quick fixes".

They could change the ordnance rules somehow, by changing the mechanics or the cards themselves, but then I think we'll see the game balance shift and that's not good for the game in general. The last thing FFG need is to create a situation where one faction becomes more powerful than another, thus killing sales of the weaker faction ships.

The one thing that must be kept in mind is that FFG aren't about to change their core rules or any of their existing cards. If there is a change to a card, there's no way they can supply all the legitimate owners of that card with an updated version. There's just too many copies of the core game and it's upgrades in circulation world wide to be able to make major changes.

They could release it on the website so you could print your own, but then they would have to allow home-printed cards at tournaments, and that would open another can of worms. I also see this as being counter productive to their own sales. And that's why they're in business - to sell games.

They've addressed the problems with the ships that weren't seeing much play by the introduction of the appropriate titles, but I feel that they don't seem to see a problem with ordnance cost and the way it plays, otherwise we would've seen some fix already. Some may see the title fix as being the easy way out, but it's actually a quite logical way to go about it. It doesn't require any additions to the FAQ as errata, and it doesn't require any card change or rule change. And both title seem to have gone down quite well with the player base.

I don't think they would bother to introduce any upgrade or fix unless they've checked almost every permutation that could be associated with it. They don't do "quick fixes".

They could change the ordnance rules somehow, by changing the mechanics or the cards themselves, but then I think we'll see the game balance shift and that's not good for the game in general. The last thing FFG need is to create a situation where one faction becomes more powerful than another, thus killing sales of the weaker faction ships.

This,^

that is why in my first post I taken a look at all the different upgrade slots and see which ships would be affected by them.

The best way to fix missiles and torpedoes are:

1. Better missile and torpedo secondary weapon upgrades. (However that does not fix the ones that are already in the game and begins to add a stronger element of power creep.)
2. Upgrades that synergies with missile and torpedoes to make them useful and more competitive. (Still you have to be careful or you could unbalance the meta and make certian builds unbeatable or too dependent on random factors)

FAQ effects and errata fixes are still viable however as I mentioned before they are to clarify the rules and explain how the cards work, not necessarily change the rules or replace words that are already printed.

But don't just look at my card suggestions. Take a look at the entire set up seeing which ships have access to what and how would one card benefit some ships and not benefit others.

I only play casually but even in that arena missiles & torps are not very useful. I think each one is a good representative of the way they worked in the old video games.

The one and only house rule we have is that you do not have to spend the TL or focus to fire it but you do have to have it. We like that solution because it lets them hit more reliably and it does not add a bunch of rules and/or additional cards we have to remember. I couldn't tell you if it makes ordnance more useful in a competitive setting but we like it.

Also, I really like the idea of ordnance dice. It will never happen officially but it sounds intriguing. Might have to try that out when I get a hold of armada.

I like the general theme of your proposals, but:

Buying a torpedo is an investment of a few points into a single attack. The systems you suggest (save the astromech) are all an investment of more points into that same attack. It seems to me that a great upgrade should have an effect on making ordinance more attractive (doing more damage, or being easier to fire) without me having to lose all effects of the upgrade after I fire.

As an example: look to autothrusters. If you run into turrets, it's wonderful! If you don't run into turrets, it's still good. Not as good, but still good.

To that end: if I'm going to spend points on an upgrade that buffs munitions, what effects might I get once I expend those munitions?

For instance: a title that give Tie Bombers a bonus when using missiles/torpedoes- but gives an extra agility die once that missile/torpedo has been fired.

Also: FAQing "spend your target lock [...]" to mean "You must have a target lock on the declared target of this attack, and if you have not spent a target lock to reroll this attack, you must discard if after the attack" isn't that big a change, IMO. It will have a nice effect, and I advocate it, but it's not a huge conceptual leap. I think getting the news out would be easy enough.

I like the general theme of your proposals, but:

Buying a torpedo is an investment of a few points into a single attack. The systems you suggest (save the astromech) are all an investment of more points into that same attack. It seems to me that a great upgrade should have an effect on making ordinance more attractive (doing more damage, or being easier to fire) without me having to lose all effects of the upgrade after I fire.

As an example: look to autothrusters. If you run into turrets, it's wonderful! If you don't run into turrets, it's still good. Not as good, but still good.

To that end: if I'm going to spend points on an upgrade that buffs munitions, what effects might I get once I expend those munitions?

For instance: a title that give Tie Bombers a bonus when using missiles/torpedoes- but gives an extra agility die once that missile/torpedo has been fired.

You do got a point, no one does spend 5 points on homing missiles even if it does save the target lock and ignore evade tokens. Still most people agree that the target lock expenditure is a down side. The points I suggested are a rough ball park. But you are right they should remain low. As for the sensor well with the Tie Advance 1x title the sensor is free in regards to points.

Also: FAQing "spend your target lock [...]" to mean "You must have a target lock on the declared target of this attack, and if you have not spent a target lock to reroll this attack, you must discard if after the attack" isn't that big a change, IMO. It will have a nice effect, and I advocate it, but it's not a huge conceptual leap. I think getting the news out would be easy enough.

We already have two missile upgrades with ATTACK [TARGET LOCK] headers that do not require you to spend your TL token and 1 missile that has ATTACK[FOCUS] and does not require you to spend your focus token.

You cannot use FAQs to simply cross out change words that are already printed on cards.

We already have two missile upgrades with ATTACK [TARGET LOCK] headers that do not require you to spend your TL token and 1 missile that has ATTACK[FOCUS] and does not require you to spend your focus token.

You cannot use FAQs to simply cross out change words that are already printed on cards.

You would still be required to spend the target lock. But you'd be able to choose to either spend it during the attack, or at it's conclusion.

You do got a point, no one does spend 5 points on homing missiles even if it does save the target lock and ignore evade tokens. Still most people agree that the target lock expenditure is a down side. The points I suggested are a rough ball park. But you are right they should remain low. As for the sensor well with the Tie Advance 1x title the sensor is free in regards to points.

The Tie Advanced Title doesn't so much give the sensor for free, as it corrects the gross overcosting of the original Tie Advanced, in a way that adds some rather attractive options to the card. Part of the reason that it was that 2 it was spending about points to fit a missile- an option that was actually detrimental to the Advanced. (and then another 2 points were added on top of this for... reasons? No idea why the Advanced was 4 points more expensive than it ought to have been given its actual performance.)

The Chardaan Refit also needs to be thought about: the A-Wing was overcosted by about 2 points, to pay for the ability to take an option (missiles) that no one took. If missiles were a great option- say there were missiles that could reliably put 4-5 damage on a Falcon (and 2-3 damage on a Tie Fighter)- you'd see both the A-Wing and missiles get a lot more play.

Come to think on it, the Tie Defender is _also_ thought to be roughly 2 points less effective than it needs to be. Which is the price of a Chardaan Refit, or a Heavy Scyk upgrade. And the E-Wing, also is thought to be... roughly 2 points too expensive. It's a Torpedo carrier. I'd never thought of it before, I'm starting to sense a theme with ships that are overpriced.

The biggest problem with ordnance is the fact that it's a one shot weapon, and for the points cost, sometimes not a great investment. The easiest solution would be to eliminate the "discard this card..." clause and make them all multi shot. Maybe a limit of three shots each, or something.

Leave the target locks as they are, because it makes them a little more pre-meditated in their use, so you're not likely to be firing off torpedoes every round. Some of the missiles and torps are limited range, so that would also limit their over-use.

At the very least, it's worth trying as a house rule in a casual game, just to see how it goes.

After firing a missile / torp perform an attack with your primary weapon.

That would do it for me. One shot extra damage.

The big problem is that for the most part munitions are forced to spend a target lock simply to fire (this is thematically and narratively fine) so struggle to make the attack roll hit hard. Its already been evidenced that if you have something like a Lambda ST-321 and Weapon's Engineer handing out target locks to bombers flying in formation, that the bombers can take Focus actions to ensure their munitions hit harder. So my suggestion would be to add in similar titles for other ships that allow them to function as a similar fire-control ship to their allies.

A title for the HWK-290 such as "Fireteam Leader" that allowed it to pass a Blue Target lock to another ship at range 1 whenever the HWK-290 would receive one. This would work for both the rebels and scum & villainy as they can both field HWK-290s. The title could even cost quite a lot but add a Crew slot to the ship, allowing for a Weapon's Engineer to be taken in addition to another crew member, to make this new ship role even better.

The alternative would be a Sensor or Modification, but then you end up competing with existing card choices for those slots and you end up pushing certain cards to auto-include in lists while others relegated to never taken.

Ultimately FFG won't re-print cards and make old ones obsolete, nor will they have an online errata that completely changes existing card text. They'll either add in extra cards as we've seen with Chardaan Refit and Advanced Targeting Computer, or they'll change the core rules as we've seen with evade tokens counting as evade die results (yay autoblasters!)

I believe FFG would find it easier to FAQ the fix to the above.

As I said in a different thread about this... If you watch the interviews with them from GenCon and Worlds, you'll hear them talk about how they don't like FAQ'ing things, or using errata.Alex (I think) said his biggest regret was giving the HWK 1 attack, but they won't go in and change it now. Because there's no way to get the updated stats to everyone, and part of FFG's philosophy is that every package sold plays the same way.So yes it would be very easy for them to say they're going to change it so missiles and torpedoes don't need to spend the TL/Focus to be used. But that's also not something they don't seem willing to do because it goes against their design philosophy.So any change to Ord, is going to have to be in the form of a upgrade card of some sort or another.

They said they don't want to errata cards, they never said they don't want to faq rules.

You can't change how Ord works without an errata of some sort somewhere, so it will not happen. Especially when you can quite easily make just about any change you want via some sort of upgrade card.

And yes they have made it quite clear that they will not change core rules with a FAQ, they've made this completely clear if you'd bother to actually watch the interviews.

They said they don't want to errata cards, they never said they don't want to faq rules.

You can't change how Ord works without an errata of some sort somewhere, so it will not happen. Especially when you can quite easily make just about any change you want via some sort of upgrade card.And yes they have made it quite clear that they will not change core rules with a FAQ, they've made this completely clear if you'd bother to actually watch the interviews.

There is also an entire section in the rule booklet that details secondary weapons that clarifies in no particular order requiring for in arc, range, and one primary or secondary atk all of which can be modified within the rule booklet and can also easily add in an addendum as they have done on countless occasions such as allowing secondary weapons the ability to modify thier atk with the token used to activate it. Just because you keep saying they won't do it doesn't make it true.

FFG wouldn't even have to do it via FAQ, though they'd want to include any change in their subsequent FAQ release.

They release new rules with separate rule sheets all the time. Ions, Boost, Auxiliary firing arcs, etc., all came with their own rule sheets.

Imagine, if you will, a Bombing Run pack that included an alternate paint Y-wing and an alternate paint TIE Bomber. Also included in that pack was a new rule sheet called Ordinance. This rule sheet would also be available online for anyone who didn't have the Bombing Run pack but wanted to use the new rules. On this new Ordinance sheet, FFG laid out a new set of rules, from definitions (what is Ordinance as opposed to secondary weapons generally) to special rules (bonus Agility for Small ships dodging torpedoes, each hit with a torpedo causes two damage, missiles impose a cap on the target's Agility for that attack, etc.). Naturally, the actual content of the rules sheet would vary depending on the solution FFG decided to go with.

I don't think this would be a terribly big problem. Tournaments already require that you be up on all the latest updates, including the FAQs and Errata, while casual play could take or leave the rule sheet as desired by the players.

Tournaments already require that you be up on all the latest updates, including the FAQs and Errata.

While it's a good idea to be up to date on things, no there is actually no requirement that you are. People can and do go play tournaments all the time, and have never even heard of the FAQ let alone read it.

Tournaments already require that you be up on all the latest updates, including the FAQs and Errata.

While it's a good idea to be up to date on things, no there is actually no requirement that you are. People can and do go play tournaments all the time, and have never even heard of the FAQ let alone read it.

What about the high-end tournaments? FFG has a sort of tournament tier system, yes? I'd imagine the top level you'd at least have to deal with FAQs and Errata, even if just as a way for TOs to adjudicate questions that come up.

I'd imagine the top level you'd at least have to deal with FAQs and Errata, even if just as a way for TOs to adjudicate questions that come up.

The TO needs to know the FAQ and such yes, but no, there is no requirements for a player to even be aware of the FAQ, let alone familiar with it.

Consider that at the World Tournament, the only thing required to take part was a legal list, and some money. No one there had to earn their way in, by winning store championships or regional events. Someone could have in theory bought a core set and a few expansions the night before, learned the rules and took part in the worlds tournament.

That's why they will not change the rules via a FAQ or with a card that changes how existing updates work, because then someone who doesn't own that expansion, or have read the FAQ will be playing a very different game than those who do, even though they have the same components...

That's why they will not change the rules via a FAQ or with a card that changes how existing updates work, because then someone who doesn't own that expansion, or have read the FAQ will be playing a very different game than those who do, even though they have the same components...

That returns us to the Large barrel roll issue. Wave 2 allowed Large barrel rolls, but the YT-2400 changed the underlying mechanic with an update that wasn't available to anyone who only bought waves 1 and 2. One assumes that a player running an Expert Handling YT-1300 who doesn't own a 2400 would still have to use the new Large barrel roll mechanic.

That returns us to the Large barrel roll issue.

There is a big difference between the interaction of 1 upgrade card and 2 ships and every missile and torpedo plus every ship that can carry them.

So no that is not really justification for changing the rules via a FAQ or rules card, because the impact is massively different. And again, is something that can quite easily be dealt with via a upgrade card, which is how FFG seems to prefer doing things.

Consider the impact someone would have on their game if they had a YT-1300 and Expert Handling then found out that the way they barrel roll works slightly different... Vs the impact when they find out that Missiles always do 4-5 damage if they hit, and Torpedos ignore shields.

From an early development stage of X-Wing:

No 'Spend your target lock' and crits were auto direct hits.