Yeah, the fact is, ordnance in the games (which I view as the absolute Star Wars space combat gospel) has a range roughly 3 times that of the main guns. You can start to acquire a target lock around 5 clicks out with missiles, 6 for torps, I believe, but it's only 2 for guns, and really your chances of hitting anything outside 1 click are not very good. So, it's definitely a different dynamic than it is in this game, where the missiles are sometimes shorter range weapons than the guns.

I think it would work better if it wasn't in the mod slot, as I think it should be able to work in conjunction with Failsafe - so you can equip a cheap missile or torp, "dumb-fire" it with Arm, but mitigate the risk with MF

Not sure how you'd do that though - a title that you can put on any ship seems a little weak

Having both a Torpedo upgrade and a mod slot would let a Y-wing or TIE/b take the torpedo upgrade and MF if they wish. The other ships could still take the modification so they aren't completely left out, but it's not going to work as well as it will for the dedicated ordnance carriers, which I believe, is how it should be.

I'd propose the Rogue Squadron title is X-wing only (or maybe no title at all).

I don't like the addition of a new action. I like the idea of keeping the target locks as they are as this is a benefit to the higher PS pilots. I think the discard should just be a "discard" where the card is turned over and an action must be used to reload, turn it back over. This benefits ships like the bombers that would be able to carry multiple shots in a row and also give fighters like A-wings an advantage with PTL. Although I could also see this getting out of hand with more A-wing only lists with PTL and proton rockets. Still you would only get 4 a-wings with proton rockets and PTL in a list, and only range 1 shots would be a concern. I don't feel like this is overpowered but makes them a real threat.

There have been plenty of new actions added to the game since it began.

The Boost action and the Cloak action are both examples of actions that were not present in the original game - plus the Huge ships have a whole bunch of unique actions too - so the addition of a new one is hardly a revolutionary idea.

Yes, good point about the adding of actions. At the same time these were added with specific ships. I also feel that adding new tokens and a custom action to the game for this reason will work but will create too much of an incentive to get ordinance. I'm looking at it from a game balance perspective. I feel that the new token stacking and unlimited range target locks would be a bit too much. While I do like the idea, it just seems over burdensome when flipping a card over is all that I think is needed. I would like FFG to do something as I think affordable ordinance could make the diversity of builds much greater. Vader would be viable if he can reload and target lock to shoot off a missile each round. To create this change would just be a FAQ and not a new action, new cards and new tokens. just seems too much. Good idea, but keeping a good balance is needed.

Removing the range limit for Target Locks would also remove the requirement to measure that range... which would, in turn, remove several threads' worth of questionable sportsmanship arguments. The only casualty that I can think of is making that one ship title useless.

- H8

I don't like the addition of a new action. I like the idea of keeping the target locks as they are as this is a benefit to the higher PS pilots. I think the discard should just be a "discard" where the card is turned over and an action must be used to reload, turn it back over. This benefits ships like the bombers that would be able to carry multiple shots in a row and also give fighters like A-wings an advantage with PTL. Although I could also see this getting out of hand with more A-wing only lists with PTL and proton rockets. Still you would only get 4 a-wings with proton rockets and PTL in a list, and only range 1 shots would be a concern. I don't feel like this is overpowered but makes them a real threat.

There have been plenty of new actions added to the game since it began.

The Boost action and the Cloak action are both examples of actions that were not present in the original game - plus the Huge ships have a whole bunch of unique actions too - so the addition of a new one is hardly a revolutionary idea.

Yes, good point about the adding of actions. At the same time these were added with specific ships. I also feel that adding new tokens and a custom action to the game for this reason will work but will create too much of an incentive to get ordinance. I'm looking at it from a game balance perspective. I feel that the new token stacking and unlimited range target locks would be a bit too much. While I do like the idea, it just seems over burdensome when flipping a card over is all that I think is needed. I would like FFG to do something as I think affordable ordinance could make the diversity of builds much greater. Vader would be viable if he can reload and target lock to shoot off a missile each round. To create this change would just be a FAQ and not a new action, new cards and new tokens. just seems too much. Good idea, but keeping a good balance is needed.

What exactly is it about adding a new action that would create too large an incentive for people to use ordnance?

Why would that be a bad thing?

I'm in complete agreement about unlimited range TLs - there should be a reward for high PS and bold aggressive play from low PS pilots - being able to TL anything and everything on the board in turn 1 eliminates that tactical element, and renders the shuttle title useless.

In terms of adding new, more useable ordnance to the game, there's 3 main problems with that.

1. They've already tried it and it failed - see Homing Missile

2. It doesn't help existing ordnance - quite the opposite - just makes it even more useless

3. It doesn't address the underlying problems associated with ordnance -namely its poor action and movement economy.

FFG have been pretty clear on the fact that they don't want to just FAQ it to change the points values or change the basic mechanic - they'll do it the way they've always done it - with new upgrades.

Right now if you want a heavy hitting Y-wing you go for a BTL A4 with a turret for between 2 and 5 points - if you want a heavy hitting B-wing you go for a HLC or Mangler for 4-7 points.

There's no incentive to switch to torps for a similar point cost - if ordnance was properly balanced there should be

The problem is not the action economy. Ordnance does not get a big enough bang for the buck. An X-Wing has three red dice without additional point costs. There is absolutely no reason to fork out points for a measly one red die more, and a one-shot to boot. If you give missiles a greater range, that is the end of the dogfight. With modern jets, the initial volley of missiles is, what counts. That's why some fighter aircraft don't even sport cannons. Booooooring.

The problem is not the action economy. Ordnance does not get a big enough bang for the buck. An X-Wing has three red dice without additional point costs. There is absolutely no reason to fork out points for a measly one red die more, and a one-shot to boot. If you give missiles a greater range, that is the end of the dogfight. With modern jets, the initial volley of missiles is, what counts. That's why some fighter aircraft don't even sport cannons. Booooooring.

But it's the poor action economy that's responsible for the lack of bang - make the bang bigger, by making it more reliable, and it's worth the bucks.

A weapon that virtually guarantees 3-4 hits at range 3, and denies your opponent a range bonus for defense, suddenly becomes worth spending a few points on

But yeah - range 4-5 ordnance would be boring

I like the action idea, I think it would be good if it were worded so multiple ordnance carriers can get an infinite chain of regenerating ordnance going, while single ordnance carriers have a delay?

I like the action idea, I think it would be good if it were worded so multiple ordnance carriers can get an infinite chain of regenerating ordnance going, while single ordnance carriers have a delay?

I'm in 2 minds about regenerating ordnance.

On the surface it seems like it might be a little too powerful when combined with the proposed "Arm" action

But then again, If you added the condition that you need to add 2 of the same type - or perhaps 2 different ones that fire within the same range bands - maybe even at the cost of your primary weapon - then you've got a strong contender for something that will compete with a HLC for a similar point value.

Unlimited shots if you equip 2 Proton Torps for 8 points and get to flip focus to crit - VS unlimited shots with HLC which flips crits back to hits for 7 points - that's a genuine choice when it comes to list building.

It would only work on Bombers, B-Wings and Y-wings - but seems to fit with the fluff

Getting back to the OP: does that really work in Attack Wing? I don't mean mechanically, I mean like, do people actually take ordnance? As in, is ordnance a significant factor in games and/or "the metagame"? Assuming it is, then obviously it's worth trying to figure out why. Is reloading the only difference? Like, do they have comparable attack capability to ones in X-Wing, or do they do 6 attack dice vs. say, most ships having 1 defense die? I've never played Attack Wing, so I have little knowledge of the game, let alone the kind of in-depth understanding to make an analysis like this.

- H8

My store uses the following house rule on all Ordnance.

All ordnance(Missiles and Torps) required to spend a token when fired may use this discarded token once in their attack.

Simple and Effective. We love it. No cards to worry about or any other issues.

Getting back to the OP: does that really work in Attack Wing? I don't mean mechanically, I mean like, do people actually take ordnance? As in, is ordnance a significant factor in games and/or "the metagame"? Assuming it is, then obviously it's worth trying to figure out why. Is reloading the only difference? Like, do they have comparable attack capability to ones in X-Wing, or do they do 6 attack dice vs. say, most ships having 1 defense die? I've never played Attack Wing, so I have little knowledge of the game, let alone the kind of in-depth understanding to make an analysis like this.

- H8

Well, I can't answer that question. I haven't played enough attack wing. But yes, on the whole, agility values are lower, attack values with main guns are similar, and ordnance minimum dice is 5, but many upgrade it to 6, and the ships have more crew so you get additional rerolls on those, beyond the target lock (which is expended and doesn't let you reroll). So, yeah, there are other factors at play here, but I thought maybe I'd throw out the suggestion and see what people thought.

Getting back to the OP: does that really work in Attack Wing? I don't mean mechanically, I mean like, do people actually take ordnance? As in, is ordnance a significant factor in games and/or "the metagame"? Assuming it is, then obviously it's worth trying to figure out why. Is reloading the only difference? Like, do they have comparable attack capability to ones in X-Wing, or do they do 6 attack dice vs. say, most ships having 1 defense die? I've never played Attack Wing, so I have little knowledge of the game, let alone the kind of in-depth understanding to make an analysis like this.

- H8

Well, I can't answer that question. I haven't played enough attack wing. But yes, on the whole, agility values are lower, attack values with main guns are similar, and ordnance minimum dice is 5, but many upgrade it to 6, and the ships have more crew so you get additional rerolls on those, beyond the target lock (which is expended and doesn't let you reroll). So, yeah, there are other factors at play here, but I thought maybe I'd throw out the suggestion and see what people thought.

It seems to me then that it's the Red vs Green thing that is the greater deciding factor, not the ability to reload

If I could spend 4 points to double or triple my attack dice and halve my opponents defence dice - even if it was for just one attack - I'd consider that a pretty good deal, in fact some people might even consider it a little overpowered

Getting back to the OP: does that really work in Attack Wing? I don't mean mechanically, I mean like, do people actually take ordnance? As in, is ordnance a significant factor in games and/or "the metagame"? Assuming it is, then obviously it's worth trying to figure out why. Is reloading the only difference? Like, do they have comparable attack capability to ones in X-Wing, or do they do 6 attack dice vs. say, most ships having 1 defense die? I've never played Attack Wing, so I have little knowledge of the game, let alone the kind of in-depth understanding to make an analysis like this.

- H8

Well, I can't answer that question. I haven't played enough attack wing. But yes, on the whole, agility values are lower, attack values with main guns are similar, and ordnance minimum dice is 5, but many upgrade it to 6, and the ships have more crew so you get additional rerolls on those, beyond the target lock (which is expended and doesn't let you reroll). So, yeah, there are other factors at play here, but I thought maybe I'd throw out the suggestion and see what people thought.

It seems to me then that it's the Red vs Green thing that is the greater deciding factor, not the ability to reload

If I could spend 4 points to double or triple my attack dice and halve my opponents defence dice - even if it was for just one attack - I'd consider that a pretty good deal, in fact some people might even consider it a little overpowered

Oh, I think it sounds like a mix of things to me.

Higher red vs. green: so the shot is sufficiently better than your normal attack. The extra damage potential is enough so that it's worth the extra work to set up.

Being able to fire the torp AND still get rerolls on the dice? Well that goes right to the issue of action economy. If you could get an upgrade card that would just get you a TL, and another card that just gave you a Focus, you might think they were worth buying to use on your Concussion Missles (or whatever).

Oh, and then you can do it more than once?

Yeah, that seems like it would add up.

- H8

If the new Armada stuff is any indication of Wave 7 of X-wing, the next wave contains a ship called the Havoc which is basically a rhombus filled with explosives.

If so, my guess is that contains our ordnance fix.

The problem with X-Wing, if you want to call it that, is that they began the game with a perceptibly specific design philosophy/paradigm. There's been a lot of growing pains as the game continues to evolve, mostly owing to overpriced ships and obsolete upgrades, but every new wave we're seeing fixes that make those elements of the game relevant again. With the coming of wave 7 and the supposed bomber love, I wouldn't doubt that ordnance will become viable in some manner.

"Fixing X" threads come and go all the time, and while there's no harm in wish-listing, speculation, or custom card/ship creation, I think we should always bear in mind that a little patience will go a long way. After all, FFG is far and away more deserving of our faith and trust than WizKids.

Well, I don't have a huge amount of customer brand loyalty either way, due to lack of experience with the subject matter, but by and large I'm willing to trust FFG because I trust they playtest changes more effectively and rigorously than I possibly could. I've got lots of other things going on in my life preventing it. Nonetheless, I did note that in the game I played of STAW, ordnance was taken on most every ship, but in X-wing it isn't, and I thought that was a difference worth mentioning. Although, somehow I missed another thread topic saying the same thing from the day before, so it's probably not news to anybody in retrospect.

WizKids is renowned for their poor game balance and QA/QC.

What about:

Targeting Array - Modification, x Points (2?)

Immediately after discarding a target lock when an attack instructs you to, you may acquire a target lock.

Simple and fits the above mentioned store rule into "rules speak".

Does seem to replace munitions failsafe and just makes ordinance more expensive. Maybe the Havoc will come with a modification "Bomblet Generator." When you discard a secondary weapon card, you may chose not to discard it. If you do, roll one Attack die and suffer any hits or crits rolled. Zero points, maybe 1 since it has a built in drawback.

In X-wing, some ships do not live long enough to warrant spending an action to re-enable the upgrade.

A major problem is the inability of low-PS pilots to acquire the required TL. Weapons being single use only is a minor detail

^THIS^

and take it from some one who loves to use double torpedo slots. Many times I have had a ship destroyed with torpedoes still on it and I try to shoot a torpedo every opportunity I have even on high PS skill ships like Horton have this problem.

So lets make a comparison to see what the underlying problem is other than 1 use time.

I will compare 2 proton torpedoes to a single HLC. I have chosen these two because they have identical attack power (firepower = 4) they have identical range (range 2-3) and roughly cost the same with 2x Proton torpedoes (4 each) being 1 point more than a single HLC (7 points).

So ignoring the point cost which is better. Well for rules wises and attack strength proton torpedoes turn an extra focus into a critical hit where as HLC downgrades all first roll critical hits to hits. So 1 extra point for the torpedoes can easily be justified. However here is where it comes into focus on why torpedoes are weaker.

The proton torpedoes requires you to spend a target lock which is very specific. If a defender knows they have a target lock they try to fly out of arc if possible and if that happens then TL for non-turrets become useless (one may even argue focus is better offensive power than TL because of this). HLC requires no such thing so often it is paired up with focus to get more hits. However proton torpedoes already have a focus result modifier but only for 1 focus result into a critical hit where having a focus token allows for multiple focus results to turn into hits.

Okay so lets go with say you can get both TL and focus on the same turn. For proton torpedoes you would spend a TL roll 4 attack dice and turn 1 focus result into a critical hit and spend the focus to turn the rest (if any) into hits. Any blanks you get for the entire attack will stay blanks (horton is the only exception). For HLC (without gunner of IG-88B) You roll 4 attack dice. Turn all Critical hits into hits. Reroll any blanks keeping all hits and critical hits this way and any focus result from the roll or reroll become hits after a focus. Now double proton torpedoes start to seem more expensive than 1 little point. HLC performs better on all accounts for less . So this is why you see B-wings with HLC instead of double proton torpedoes.

So there we have come to the root of the problem. It is not the one attack only, it is not average 4-6 point cost. It is that for one there is a lack of good attack modifications for the investment (and we all know how dice love to screw you at the most critical moments) and the fact that there is other (cannon) upgrades which can do the same or even better for less points .

This is what is needed to fix target lock spending munitions. Abilities that allow for more attack dice modification (defense dice modification may be weaker) Abilities that make spending or acquiring target lock better (like say a droid that allows you to change your target lock at the end of the activation phase). Or upgrades that just make munitions cost less points fitting them better as list fillers instead of say a strategy to build your list around. Honestly if I could fix bombers any way I would take "Dutch"s pilot ability and give it to Capt Jonus.

In X-wing, some ships do not live long enough to warrant spending an action to re-enable the upgrade.

A major problem is the inability of low-PS pilots to acquire the required TL. Weapons being single use only is a minor detail

^THIS^

and take it from some one who loves to use double torpedo slots. Many times I have had a ship destroyed with torpedoes still on it and I try to shoot a torpedo every opportunity I have even on high PS skill ships like Horton have this problem.

So lets make a comparison to see what the underlying problem is other than 1 use time.

I will compare 2 proton torpedoes to a single HLC. I have chosen these two because they have identical attack power (firepower = 4) they have identical range (range 2-3) and roughly cost the same with 2x Proton torpedoes (4 each) being 1 point more than a single HLC (7 points).

So ignoring the point cost which is better. Well for rules wises and attack strength proton torpedoes turn an extra focus into a critical hit where as HLC downgrades all first roll critical hits to hits. So 1 extra point for the torpedoes can easily be justified. However here is where it comes into focus on why torpedoes are weaker.

The proton torpedoes requires you to spend a target lock which is very specific. If a defender knows they have a target lock they try to fly out of arc if possible and if that happens then TL for non-turrets become useless (one may even argue focus is better offensive power than TL because of this). HLC requires no such thing so often it is paired up with focus to get more hits. However proton torpedoes already have a focus result modifier but only for 1 focus result into a critical hit where having a focus token allows for multiple focus results to turn into hits.

Okay so lets go with say you can get both TL and focus on the same turn. For proton torpedoes you would spend a TL roll 4 attack dice and turn 1 focus result into a critical hit and spend the focus to turn the rest (if any) into hits. Any blanks you get for the entire attack will stay blanks (horton is the only exception). For HLC (without gunner of IG-88B) You roll 4 attack dice. Turn all Critical hits into hits. Reroll any blanks keeping all hits and critical hits this way and any focus result from the roll or reroll become hits after a focus. Now double proton torpedoes start to seem more expensive than 1 little point. HLC performs better on all accounts for less . So this is why you see B-wings with HLC instead of double proton torpedoes.

So there we have come to the root of the problem. It is not the one attack only, it is not average 4-6 point cost. It is that for one there is a lack of good attack modifications for the investment (and we all know how dice love to screw you at the most critical moments) and the fact that there is other (cannon) upgrades which can do the same or even better for less points .

This is what is needed to fix target lock spending munitions. Abilities that allow for more attack dice modification (defense dice modification may be weaker) Abilities that make spending or acquiring target lock better (like say a droid that allows you to change your target lock at the end of the activation phase). Or upgrades that just make munitions cost less points fitting them better as list fillers instead of say a strategy to build your list around. Honestly if I could fix bombers any way I would take "Dutch"s pilot ability and give it to Capt Jonus.

2 proton torps to 1 HLC is pretty much the perfect comparison - once you can make them about as good as each other you've done the job.

The simplest way to do it is by adding a new action - "Arm" - accessed by some kind of generic upgrade card that any ship with a missile or torp slot can access.

The Arm Action.

When performing an Arm action the player places a red Arm token next to his ship.

This token may be spent in place of a target lock when using any secondary weapon with the Attack:Target Lock header.

If you have 2 or more face down upgrade cards with the Missile or Torpedo upgrade icon, you may spend 1 Arm token to turn two of them face up.

Arm tokens are not removed at the end of a turn.

So - ordnance can be Armed in the first turn (or two) of the game

It can then be "dumb-fired" straight away with little or no modifier by using your Arm token in place of the TL

Or you can get your money's worth by stacking TLs and Focus on top

Then once you've had your 2 shots, you can take an action - or gain a token through some other means - to reload - but only if you had two missiles or torps in the pipe on the first place

So you're improving the general mechanic by enabling greater potential for manipulation of the attack dice, but also catering especially to the ships that are supposed to be ordnance platforms - the Y-Wing, the Bomber and the B-Wing (though it would also work as an alternative to a cannon on Slave 1)

Plus having this as an action and a token within the game enables new and interesting upgrades that play with the token

Like an autoloader mod for 1 point that gives you 2 Arm tokens for each Arm action you take - basically enabling a ship with 2 filled torp slots to fire them continuously.

OK it'll cost 9 points overall but it's a monster - especially paired with Dutch or Jonus as both will work about as well as each other in that regard - so it darned well should cost 9 points

Or an ECM system that steals or removes Arm tokens

loads of possibilities and a simple fix that requires no errata or recalculation of costs

In X-wing, some ships do not live long enough to warrant spending an action to re-enable the upgrade.

A major problem is the inability of low-PS pilots to acquire the required TL. Weapons being single use only is a minor detail

^THIS^

...

So there we have come to the root of the problem. It is not the one attack only, it is not average 4-6 point cost. It is that for one there is a lack of good attack modifications for the investment (and we all know how dice love to screw you at the most critical moments) and the fact that there is other (cannon) upgrades which can do the same or even better for less points .

This is what is needed to fix target lock spending munitions. Abilities that allow for more attack dice modification (defense dice modification may be weaker) Abilities that make spending or acquiring target lock better (like say a droid that allows you to change your target lock at the end of the activation phase). Or upgrades that just make munitions cost less points fitting them better as list fillers instead of say a strategy to build your list around. Honestly if I could fix bombers any way I would take "Dutch"s pilot ability and give it to Capt Jonus.

2 proton torps to 1 HLC is pretty much the perfect comparison - once you can make them about as good as each other you've done the job.

The simplest way to do it is by adding a new action - "Arm" - accessed by some kind of generic upgrade card that any ship with a missile or torp slot can access.

The Arm Action.

When performing an Arm action the player places a red Arm token next to his ship.

This token may be spent in place of a target lock when using any secondary weapon with the Attack:Target Lock header.

If you have 2 or more face down upgrade cards with the Missile or Torpedo upgrade icon, you may spend 1 Arm token to turn two of them face up.

Arm tokens are not removed at the end of a turn.

So - ordnance can be Armed in the first turn (or two) of the game

It can then be "dumb-fired" straight away with little or no modifier by using your Arm token in place of the TL

Or you can get your money's worth by stacking TLs and Focus on top

Then once you've had your 2 shots, you can take an action - or gain a token through some other means - to reload - but only if you had two missiles or torps in the pipe on the first place

So you're improving the general mechanic by enabling greater potential for manipulation of the attack dice, but also catering especially to the ships that are supposed to be ordnance platforms - the Y-Wing, the Bomber and the B-Wing (though it would also work as an alternative to a cannon on Slave 1)

Plus having this as an action and a token within the game enables new and interesting upgrades that play with the token

Like an autoloader mod for 1 point that gives you 2 Arm tokens for each Arm action you take - basically enabling a ship with 2 filled torp slots to fire them continuously.

OK it'll cost 9 points overall but it's a monster - especially paired with Dutch or Jonus as both will work about as well as each other in that regard - so it darned well should cost 9 points

Or an ECM system that steals or removes Arm tokens

loads of possibilities and a simple fix that requires no errata or recalculation of costs

Well first a new arm action is an errata because it is a new action (much like cloak and boost) and you have to state which ship it is on. Just saying that now every ship can do it is an errata itself. For example every ship as of now can do the focus action, but still the focus icon is printed on every ship's action bar. So even with such a universal focus action it is stated on the card and title as an action it can perform. There is no action that is not stated what can be performed or not.

And the Arm action well for one it is an action that doesn't make it easier to spend or acquire target locks so it doesn't help ordnance that much. It may make proton torpedoes good for another turn but so can munitions failsafe on a bad roll preventing the discard of that upgrade so the points are not wasted on bad luck.

I cut out most of my quote to only the fixes that matter or would make a difference. I will reiterate them here.

• An ability/upgrade that improves the dice modification of munition weapons to where blanks are not that detrimental to torpedo and missile attacks. (For example Horton's Ability which works wonders with proton torpedoes)
• An upgrade that makes using them easier and less likely to get countered by moving out of arc. (Nera is a fairly good example but another would be say an upgrade that allows you to make a free target lock action if you have a blue target lock in case your original target manage to fly out of arc.)
• Last but not really the most effective but possibly the simplest, would be something that creates a discount on the point cost of said missile and torpedo weapons.

Anything else would be no more effective than what munitions failssafe is now in improving missiles and torpedoes.

While ffg probably wont change the cards and things there are other variables that we might be able to mess with that might give us the right results for ordinance game balance. The Arm action seems quite cleaver would like to see it play-tested out.

We could also adjust the dice and say instead of rolling red dice for ordinance say you now roll specific ordinance (maybe blue dice?) with better odds.

If you want to adjust the ranges on them instead of numbers on the card why not adjust the measuring stick? Range one could stay the same while ranges two and three could be slightly widened.

Lists could also have a small portion of "ordinance points" say 1/5th of a squads cost could spent on missiles and torp's so you can take a 100pts list and add 20pts of missiles and torpedo's.

FFG probably have been looking at the ordinance issue we'll just have to wait and see what they cook up.

What about:

Auto Target Lock (modification)

When firing missles/torpedo's you may treat a ship inside your firing arc as if you would have a target lock on it.

(You can still use focus action to modify dice, you just dont have to get - and spend - a target lock to fire your missles/torpedos. Much more action economy and efficient)

And:

Bombs away! (modification)

You may fire two missles in a single turn on the same target lock

(Both attacks are rolled seperatly)

This can potentially destroy most ships in a single turn, making the threat for ordnance much bigger

Well first a new arm action is an errata because it is a new action (much like cloak and boost) and you have to state which ship it is on. Just saying that now every ship can do it is an errata itself. For example every ship as of now can do the focus action, but still the focus icon is printed on every ship's action bar. So even with such a universal focus action it is stated on the card and title as an action it can perform. There is no action that is not stated what can be performed or not.

I think we are talking at cross purposes with our usages of the word errata - I generally go with the accepted usage - an error in printing or a list of corrected errors.

You obviously mean something different to what I do.

An upgrade card that adds the Arm action to your action bar is no more an errata than an Engine Upgrade card adding the boost action to your action bar is an errata.

And the Arm action well for one it is an action that doesn't make it easier to spend or acquire target locks so it doesn't help ordnance that much. It may make proton torpedoes good for another turn but so can munitions failsafe on a bad roll preventing the discard of that upgrade so the points are not wasted on bad luck.

I think you misunderstood the description of how the action might work.

Adding an arm action and token deals with the situations you describe very precisely and simply.

It doesn't make it easier to gain a target lock - and nothing ever will - because we can't change that without a pretty extensive errata - and that's about as likely to happen as an errata that reduces all the costs of ordnance at a stroke.

So rather than try to change the rules, it's more useful to think of ways you can plug another subset of the existing rules into them and use those to get around the restrictions that are in place.

So what you do is you get around the target lock restrictions by doing away with the NEED for a target lock in the first place, by allowing an Arm token to be spent in place of a TL under a specific set of circumstances.

(Namely when you fire a missile or torp - Arm could not be used for rerolls on primary weapon attacks)

This retains the utility of a TL without having to change any rules, and rewards you for getting one - as you can spend the ARM token instead of TL to fire the ordnance - then use a TL or focus to improve the roll.

Even without dice modification, Arm is still an improvement because it removes the targeting restriction - without having to mess about with free target lock actions in the combat phase (which still doesn't solve the problem of lack of dice mods, leads to a whole minefield of exploits using PTL and EI, not to mention the rule vagueries that will crop up as a result)

These are precisely the issues which you described as being problems and Arm solves them really simply.

Example 1:

Z95 MissileMook#1 with an Armed Cluster missile, moves and gets a TL on Soontir Fel - but then on Fel's move he darts out of arc - Now normally MissileMook#1 couldn't use his missile at all this turn, even though he might have another target within arc and range.

But with an Arm token he's not restricted to the ship he has Target Locked- as he can spend his arm token instead of the TL to fire his missile at any legal target within arc and range.

So now he has the choice of spending his Arm token to take an unmodified missile shot at any legal target of choice - Or save the token and the missile in the hope of an even better modifier (stacking focus on top of the Arm and TL) in the following turn.

Example 2

Scimitar #1 is armed with 2 proton torps and an autoloader which gives him 2 Arm tokens for each Arm action - in addition, because he has 2 torps in the pipe he can spend an arm token to flip 2 face down ordnance cards face up - total squad points: 27

Turn 1 S1 moves 1 forward, takes 2 Arm tokens- out of range - no shot

Turn 2 S1 moves 3 forward, takes focus because he's out of TL range, enemies then move into range - spends Arm to fire Torp, modifies with focus

Turn 3 S1 moves and takes TL - spends Arm to fire torp - modifies with TL

Turn 4 S1 moves - takes 2 Arm tokens - spends 1 to flip both torp cards face up, spends another to fire torp

Turn 5 S1 moves - takes 2 Arm tokens - spends Arm to fire torp - spends another to flip both torp cards face up

Turn 6 S1 moves - takes 2 Arm tokens - spends 1 to fire torp

Turn 7 S1 moves - takes TL - spends Arm to fire Torp - modifies with TL

and so on

Now performance-wise this still isn't quite at HLC level of efficiency - but not that far off either.

And you've got to consider that besides the B-Wing, the only other ships with more than one missile or torp slot are only 18 points each - so that level of firepower for a total of 27 points is pretty frightening prospect however you want to count it.

Nicely priced from a squad building perspective too - 2 double torp, autoloader Scimitars and naked Jonus would be a fearsome beast and leave you a nice round 24 points for a couple of ties or even a Doom Shuttle