Lots of these "fixes" will break ordnance in Epic, and that's something the designers will be thinking about.

It is probably not possible to balance everything in this game for the 100 standard dogfight format, but some ordnance already is fairly effective in the standard game. That's fine. There are plenty of upgrades, new and old, that are more suitable for one format than another.

If you don't like the fact that you have to spend a focus or TL just to fire, leaving you without a way to modify results, there are ways to pass focus and target locks (Garven, Dutch, Cracken come to mind). Deadeye can help.

tl;dr: I don't think ordnance needs fixing. Play better, bro.

A friend and I were talking about this last night, and this is what we came up with. Note that's it's a total overhaul, and wouldn't be appropriate before X-Wing 2.0. All of the current cards would need to be thrown in the trash, and rebalanced versions added.

One of the main issues that the current implementation is that they don't feel like missiles or torpedoes; they feel like single-use shotguns, which is pretty much the opposite of a missile.

- Ordnance can be fired at anyone on the board, using the attacker's attack. No range restrictions, no arc restrictions.

- The attack does *not* land immediately; instead a round countdown is started, which decrements at the start of the combat phase, after all "at the start of combat" abilities have resolved. When the counter hits zero, the attack resolves.

- Assume a baseline cost of roughly 3 points, 3 dice of damage.

- If the target is greater than range 3 when firing, add +N to the counter, where N is determined by the type of ordnance being fired. Range bonuses/penalties are not used.

- If the target is outside of the attackers firing arc when firing, add +M to the counter, where M is determined by the type of ordnance being fired. This stacks with the previous +N.

- When the attack resolves, if the attacker has a target lock on the defender, then the defender rolls L fewer defense dice, where L is determined by the type of ordnance being fired.

The reason that I like this approach is because it really makes a flight of TIE Bombers standing off and launching a couple waves of torps and missiles feel thematic.

While not something that we discussed, I really like the idea that torps double defense dice, but do an extra hit for every uncanceled damage.

Our general thought was that torps would have larger penalties for being out-of-arc than missiles, since they're meant to be slow, heavy hitters. Similarly, missiles would have a bigger TL defense penalty, since they're meant to catch smaller agile ships. Assault missiles could have a default delay of +0, so if you fired it at someone in-arc, within r3, then they would hit immediately (otherwise the swarm has time to scatter).

This also allows for modifications like chaff/flares/ECM that do things like increment the counter (delay impact) and have a chance to discard the counter entirely (missile goes after the flare or w/e).

Of course, there'd be a whole host of balancing issues that would have to be addressed, but that's why it's a 2.0-only thing. I think that the knowledge and planning that comes from "this ship is going to be hit in 2 turns; how do I prepare for that?" would be really interesting.

Lots of these "fixes" will break ordnance in Epic, and that's something the designers will be thinking about.

It is probably not possible to balance everything in this game for the 100 standard dogfight format, but some ordnance already is fairly effective in the standard game. That's fine. There are plenty of upgrades, new and old, that are more suitable for one format than another.

If you don't like the fact that you have to spend a focus or TL just to fire, leaving you without a way to modify results, there are ways to pass focus and target locks (Garven, Dutch, Cracken come to mind). Deadeye can help.

tl;dr: I don't think ordnance needs fixing. Play better, bro.

Wait, did someone just agree with me? Finally.

Me, I don't limit that to ordnance either. Some ships and builds are situational as well. Some ships are support ships and making them into fighters for balance actually unbalances the game. Sure they can fight, sure that can attack,but what they should excel at is support. The right tool for the job, so to speak. I like ordnance; I love my Imperial Bombers and this isn't a contradiction of terms.

If you don't like the fact that you have to spend a focus or TL just to fire, leaving you without a way to modify results, there are ways to pass focus and target locks (Garven, Dutch, Cracken come to mind). Deadeye can help.

tl;dr: I don't think ordnance needs fixing. Play better, bro.

To me, I think ordnance will work when you can take a list that is 4 Rookies w/ Proton Torpedoes and it's competitive. Even if you get the TL and then spend a round to get the Focus, it's still not enough. I think that it's too many points to put into something without some way of modifying. I don't think you should have to build a list that requires some sort of special person to modify your dice to make an upgrade effective.

Maybe the following errata:

Torpedoes: No longer requires a target lock to use. Player may choose to use a target lock when firing a torpedo, removing the range limitation of the torpedo completely.

Missiles: No longer requires (focus? target lock?) to use. Player may choose to use a target lock to remove the requirement for the enemy ship to be within the primary firing arc.

That would force a change to the card text, which FFG really seems to look at as only a last resort.

How about these:

Modification:

0 pts

Ordnance targeting Computer

When attacking with Torps or Missiles, after rolling you may turn up to 2 blank results to a hit results. Sure it affects concussion missiles, but just don't take it

and

Modification

1 pts

Upgraded Warheads

When attacking with Torps or Missiles, after rolling add 1 hit result to the die roll.

We used the Upgraded warheads in our campaign a few weeks ago, they make ordinance much better getting one automatic hit result was a great boost.

Making both of these mods, allows you to have a choice between them and also keeps munitions failsafe in play.

If you don't like the fact that you have to spend a focus or TL just to fire, leaving you without a way to modify results, there are ways to pass focus and target locks (Garven, Dutch, Cracken come to mind). Deadeye can help.

tl;dr: I don't think ordnance needs fixing. Play better, bro.

To me, I think ordnance will work when you can take a list that is 4 Rookies w/ Proton Torpedoes and it's competitive. Even if you get the TL and then spend a round to get the Focus, it's still not enough. I think that it's too many points to put into something without some way of modifying. I don't think you should have to build a list that requires some sort of special person to modify your dice to make an upgrade effective.

Play competitive in what situation? There seems to be a desire to make everything individually balanced to each other without any synergy. Weren't bomber always considered to be roll specific. We want to make bombers into fighters, why is that?

If we make 4 Rookies w/Proton Torpedoes competitive in a 100 point game think of what 12 of them might do in a 300 point Epic game. Hmm, maybe that's the solution we're looking for; the ability to eliminate Epic huge ships in a single turn. Then the bombers fighters that are no longer carrying ordnance can still hold their own against X-Wings and B-Wings.

I my little universe it seems to me that Bombers are very competitive when used for the right purpose and very noncompetitive when used as fighters.

But. That just me.

I my little universe it seems to me that Bombers are very competitive when used for the right purpose and very noncompetitive when used as fighters.

I've heard of a number of people doing quite well with them as fighters. They run bombers with little to no ord whatsoever and do well with them.

Play competitive in what situation? There seems to be a desire to make everything individually balanced to each other without any synergy. Weren't bomber always considered to be roll specific. We want to make bombers into fighters, why is that?

If we make 4 Rookies w/Proton Torpedoes competitive in a 100 point game think of what 12 of them might do in a 300 point Epic game. Hmm, maybe that's the solution we're looking for; the ability to eliminate Epic huge ships in a single turn. Then the bombers fighters that are no longer carrying ordnance can still hold their own against X-Wings and B-Wings.

I my little universe it seems to me that Bombers are very competitive when used for the right purpose and very noncompetitive when used as fighters.

But. That just me.

Actually, that makes a lot of sense. I can see that.

Maybe it's my time playing X-wing vs Tie Fighter that it seems like Proton Torpedoes are useful against Tie Fighters?

Ken, you're absolutely right. Ordinance in general has a specific purpose. When playing epic, more often then not you can assume you will be facing down something that will need a bunch of torps. Advanced Proton Torps do fantastic work on a corvette, there is no denying that at all. Most of the cheaper ordinance has a more general use purpose.

Then when you really think about it, this perceived ordinance flaw stems from elsewhere. In 100pt squad building, you often have to go for more flexibility and reliability if you want to compete against a cornucopia of possible lists. If you know your opponent is flying a swarm, or even just 4 ships, assault missiles start to sound really good. But they're worthless against a 2 ship build. At the end of the day, the safer choice in upgrades tends to be the ones that will work against near anything..... flechettes, proxs, hlc, predator, etc....

I've always wondered if some type of side board system would work for this game. In MTG, in which you play 2 out of 3, you're allowed to side board after the first match. Doesn't quite work here since games take an hour or more. Maybe only specific upgrade types would be side board allowable. I could see a huge problem with fat han lists just waiting to see if there was a phantom to drop on VI or not.

Ken, you're absolutely right. Ordinance in general has a specific purpose. When playing epic, more often then not you can assume you will be facing down something that will need a bunch of torps. Advanced Proton Torps do fantastic work on a corvette, there is no denying that at all. Most of the cheaper ordinance has a more general use purpose.

Then when you really think about it, this perceived ordinance flaw stems from elsewhere. In 100pt squad building, you often have to go for more flexibility and reliability if you want to compete against a cornucopia of possible lists. If you know your opponent is flying a swarm, or even just 4 ships, assault missiles start to sound really good. But they're worthless against a 2 ship build. At the end of the day, the safer choice in upgrades tends to be the ones that will work against near anything..... flechettes, proxs, hlc, predator, etc....

I've always wondered if some type of side board system would work for this game. In MTG, in which you play 2 out of 3, you're allowed to side board after the first match. Doesn't quite work here since games take an hour or more. Maybe only specific upgrade types would be side board allowable. I could see a huge problem with fat han lists just waiting to see if there was a phantom to drop on VI or not.

Which, I think, is part of the issue and my point. The ordnance would be is good in the right situation. But in a 100 point game there is just no knowing unless... you both knew the ships (without upgrades) ahead of time. At least in a 300 or 400 point game you might expect a more varied build and a huge or two. Well if you were playing for the purpose of using a huge then yes you'd see them.

Since it is good in the right situation then buffing them will make them even a little should make them more common else where and might (just might) make them seriously over powered in those situation where they work not.

Yes there is not guarantee (without Munition Fail Safe) but high risk and a balanced fleet your chances go up. Then if the dice gods fail you consider this. They may have no matter what you chose to take.

Best fix for ordnance IMO is an errata.

Missiles: "Targets may not spend focus tokens when defending against this attack." Fills a missile's role nicely, namely in tracking fast-movers.

Torpedoes: "Uncanceled Crit results from this attack are applied directly to the target's Hull value, regardless of how many shields it has remaining." Does catastrophic damage to the sub-3 Agility crowd, while being a risk against agile craft that can throw more defense dice.

That kind of fix does a decent job of not just improving ordnance across the board but of diversifying their respective roles

I really think if you just allow someone to use the TL or Focus that is required to fire it with the attack, it solves everything. It's not overpowering. It still requires the TL. It saves you from wasting points on one attack that might flub.

This seems like the easiest tweak for FFG to make to the FAQ. They can just define "spend your target lock" as including the ability to use your TL to modify your attack before you have to discard it.

I really think if you just allow someone to use the TL or Focus that is required to fire it with the attack, it solves everything. It's not overpowering. It still requires the TL. It saves you from wasting points on one attack that might flub.

This seems like the easiest tweak for FFG to make to the FAQ. They can just define "spend your target lock" as including the ability to use your TL to modify your attack before you have to discard it.

Just curious how this would affect Huge/Epic ships?

At this point, I think anything that hits just does full damage, but only if it hits, any uncancelled crits cause crits instead, all of the missiles / torps remain as they are otherwise, concussion and homing still give bonus' to hit, but deal normal max damage. They can be dodged, but boom if they aren't.

P.S. I'm also leery of auto include cards. Refit for the A-Wing and soon the TIE Advanced X1. You can't grab your ship and play. You NEED to be more familiar with the game. Soon everything will have multiple levels in interruptions; multiple actions on everything; the X-Wing will be the fastest most maneuverable ship in the game; every ship you play will have at least 3 or 4 upgrades/modification/title cards. This game won't be for young players but rather deck builders. And people will laugh when they hear that X-Wing is won not by playing well but by knowing the rules better. Kind of like another space Sci-Fi game.

P.P.S. Don't get me wrong, I realize that some ships needed a fix or upgrade but I hope this isn't the new norm for all ships.

if something needs fixing you can't fix in a way other than an auto include. if you don't need to include something to use what needs fixing than it doesn't need fixing

The easiest way to make torpedos and missiles be usable is to increase range. If you remember the video games, you fired missiles and torpedos from very far and then change to laser cannon at close range

For example: Target lock can be made up to range 5.

Torpedos and misiles can be fired between range 3 and 5

This simple thing would make ordinance really usable, but the problem is the game field maybe is too small for this. ¿Maybe 4x4 feet game fields?

There are two simple fixes that I think would make the game a much more interesting place

It involves removing two upgrade cards from the game and instead incorporating them into the core rules

1.) the out of arc portion of Auto-thrusters, no boost restriction

2.) DEADEYE

but its perfectly logical to require target locks when launching ordinance. luke didn't need to because of the force but other than that you should need target locks.

There are two simple fixes that I think would make the game a much more interesting place

It involves removing two upgrade cards from the game and instead incorporating them into the core rules

1.) the out of arc portion of Auto-thrusters, no boost restriction

2.) DEADEYE

but its perfectly logical to require target locks when launching ordinance. luke didn't need to because of the force but other than that you should need target locks.

It's also logical to assume that a target lock would improve your chances of scoring a hit - but in the case of most ordnance it doesn't - because the TL is usually spent just to make the attack, not improve it

If I'm fielding an entire 12 X-Wing Squadron of Rookies + Proton Torpedoes, spending all 300 of my list points to do so, I had darned well better see some awesome ROI!

Something I thought about earlier today, as an errata:

For any (torpedo) or (missiles) that cist 4 or more Points, when the defender cancles all (hit) or (crit) results, they suffer 1 damage.

I'd call it errata, because I don't want to spend any points or slots to make bad ordnance better, and I'm not sure if the newer/lower point cost munitions are in need of much buffing.

I've also worded this in a way that it won't apply any on-hit effects, while still providing some consistency in damage dealt. If you spend 4-5 points on a one shot upgrade, with this rule, you'd get _some_ value out of having fired it.

There are two simple fixes that I think would make the game a much more interesting place

It involves removing two upgrade cards from the game and instead incorporating them into the core rules

1.) the out of arc portion of Auto-thrusters, no boost restriction

2.) DEADEYE

but its perfectly logical to require target locks when launching ordinance. luke didn't need to because of the force but other than that you should need target locks.

It's also logical to assume that a target lock would improve your chances of scoring a hit - but in the case of most ordnance it doesn't - because the TL is usually spent just to make the attack, not improve it

It is most logical to put the needs of gameplay above the needs of the lore

always

I still contend. This is a good Idea

P.S. I'm also leery of auto include cards. Refit for the A-Wing and soon the TIE Advanced X1. You can't grab your ship and play. You NEED to be more familiar with the game. Soon everything will have multiple levels in interruptions; multiple actions on everything; the X-Wing will be the fastest most maneuverable ship in the game; every ship you play will have at least 3 or 4 upgrades/modification/title cards. This game won't be for young players but rather deck builders. And people will laugh when they hear that X-Wing is won not by playing well but by knowing the rules better. Kind of like another space Sci-Fi game.

P.P.S. Don't get me wrong, I realize that some ships needed a fix or upgrade but I hope this isn't the new norm for all ships.

if something needs fixing you can't fix in a way other than an auto include. if you don't need to include something to use what needs fixing than it doesn't need fixing

this is 100% untrue

they fixed the original, absolutely obscene large ship barrel-rolling without releasing a host of mandatory upgrades

While I'm okay with releasing upgrade cards that are auto-include to fix certain ships, releasing auto-include upgrade cards to enable the effective use of other upgrade cards is getting to silly levels of clunky game design

just write out a new ordinance rule on a card like the "how bombs work" card that comes with the bomb upgrades and tokens in ship expansions

and I'm holding to my opinion that they should be 2-shots per card. You don't want to up the damage output of single shot upgrades because they'll get some stupid crazy spikes in damage and turn the game into more of a dice fest than turrets do. Much more efficient imo to improve consistency by allowing another turn of use.

How this'll spike already useful ordinance (such as cluster missiles vessery or the upcoming Tie/x1 AC + cluster missiles) may be a matter for concern

in reading this thread I have realised, as some people have said, that it makes sense for ordinance to be good mainly against larger ships in epic play rather than in small dogfights averaging around 4v4 in size (I'm guessing)