So it's generally regarded that, by and large, most ordnance is not worth its points. Some manages to pull of somewhat better usability than others, but overall, it's generally not something you want to sink a lot of points into as you rarely get that value out of it.

And, to that end, there has been no end of suggestions as to how the game might be re-worked to make the ordnance options viable.

I think a lot of the ideas I've read (IMHO) tend to go a bit too far, though. And, worse, require selective re-writes that change the behavior of how some weapons work more than others to accommodate the proposed revision. (Target locks NEVER need to be spent to fire? Okay, fine, but what particular value do weapons that already do not discard the target lock gain in exchange? etc)

Coming out of the last tournament I was in that I used ordnance, though, an idea struck me - basically, building on an idea others have suggested a few times, but tweaking it. (Actually, the new method of selecting debris as part of the list is really what made the solution to the problem jump to the forefront of thought...)

Anyway, the tweak is small, easy to implement, and really has no unusual weapon-specific interactions...while, IMHO, fixing the worst problem about ordnance in that bringing the wrong thing to the battle might make it completely useless.

During list building, a ship with ordnance can be noted to have a certain number of points of ordnance as part of the list build. The player may then note down three possible ordnance configurations for the ship that is equal to, or less than, the points allocated in their list for that ship's ordnance. The player is free to choose which of the three options they will use for each ship so equipped during any given match setup, as part of the ship placement on the table (and so this decision occurs within PS and initiative sequence in case of opponents who each have that decision to make).

As an example of how that might work - a player might bring to a tournament a list like:

• Howlrunner (18) + Push the Limit (3) + Stealth Device (3) = 24
• Academy Pilot (12) = 12
• Academy Pilot (12) = 12
• Academy Pilot (12) = 12
• Scimitar Squadron Pilot (16) + Ordnance (4) = 20
  - Option A: Flechette Torpedo (2) + Flechette Torpedo (2) = 4
  - Option B: Proton Torpedo (4) = 4
  - Option C: Proximity Mines (3) = 3
• Scimitar Squadron Pilot (16) + Ordnance (4) = 20
  - Option A: Flechette Torpedo (2) + Seismic Charge (2) = 4
  - Option B: Cluster Missiles (4) = 4
  - Option C: Proximity Mines (3) = 3

====

100 pts

...as players will be limited in the options they have to choose from, it solves some of the issue of other variants on the idea, where players might take too long puzzling through their choices...and as the optional changes are limited to ordnance, only, it prevents the paralyzing delay of someone trying to re-work their entire list.

It also solves potential MoV wonkiness for partial-list-kills, as the ordnance allocated is what is scored - regardless of whether the ship is actually carrying that much at the time or not (in the above example, the TIE Bombers are always treated as 20-pt ships for scoring, regardless of which ordnance choices they made).

And at the same time, I think this would do a lot to fix the "problem" - the flexibility to make some minor tweaks to the ordnance selection based on the opponent you are facing (dual Firespray? Pass on the flechettes!) should help make the ordnance options somewhat more valuable.

Thoughts?

It still doesn't fix the fact the ordinance itself isn't work the points at its current state. Too many points for not enough damage output.

... that change the behavior of how some weapons work more than others to accommodate the proposed revision. (Target locks NEVER need to be spent to fire? Okay, fine, but what particular value do weapons that already do not discard the target lock gain in exchange? etc)

This is why the fix "if a weapon requires you to spend a token to fire it, you may use the normal effects of that token during that attack" works so well. Ordnance that doesn't require you to spend the token aren't changed at all, and are still better than other ordnance because you might roll well and be able to keep the token, but the ordnance that requires spending the token still requires spending it, but gets buffed for its trouble, bringing it much more in line with other weapons. It's a one sentence errata to the core rules that buffs the correct weapons without screwing the other weapons and without making anything overpowered. Cluster missiles would probably require additional clarification, but then what DOESN'T make clusters more confusing.

It still doesn't fix the fact the ordinance itself isn't work the points at its current state. Too many points for not enough damage output.

That's not necessarily the case, though.

When having to compare the price against EVERY list you'd face, sure, the weapons fall short. A bog-standard Proton Torpedo is absolutely not worth four points against a TIE Phantom or E-Wing or (etc, et al). However, I've found it's a reasonably smart use of 4 points against a Decimator - whatever you roll ends up going straight in, and that crit to top things off can truly wreck a Decimator's day. Conversely, a flechette torp is about the worst points you could spend against a Fat Han list...not likely to score any damage at all after C-3PO works his magic, and no stress for the target. Against B-Wings, though? Heh...hehehe...HEHEHEHEHE....how many can I bring, amiright?

I'm hoping wave 7 or 8 will give us an upgrade like this:

Expanded Ordnance Bay

<Missile> or <Torpedo> slot (the first upgrade that you can choose which kind of slot to put it in)

When attacking with a secondary weapon that has the same upgrade icon that this card is equipped to and it instructs you to discard it to perform the attack, do not discard it.

3(-ish) points

I like this for a few reasons:

1. It gives bombers (TIE Bombers, Y-Wings, etc.) an advantage over ships that have only one missile or torpedo slot.

2. Since it takes up a missile or torpedo slot, it forces you to make a choice between carrying a variety of missiles or torpedoes or just one that you can use throughout the whole game.

3. It doesn't completely overshadow Munitions Failsafe since it is more expensive.

4. It frees up the modification slot on multi-ordnance ships since they don't need Munitions Failsafe.

It still doesn't fix the fact the ordinance itself isn't work the points at its current state. Too many points for not enough damage output.

It is not the damage output but the restrictions of Target Lock and the lack of result modification to give you better probability. The point cost is also secondary. If you want to find out what the problem with ordenance is take 2 proton torpedoes and compare it to HLC.

Or how about this for a practice. 2 Blue Squadron pilots. 1 has HLC and one has 2x proton torpedoes. See who comes out on top most of the time. or try Tie Defender with HLC vs Tie Bomber with 2x proton torpedoes. See what works see what cause the other to not work. and then work from there.

As for points that is the question on how much points you spend. a single proton torpedo is 1/4 of a ship. So if you have 2 Y-wings loaded with 2x proton torpedoes you already lost a headhunter (or a Tie Fighter if you have 2 Tie Bombers with 2x concussion missiles). Putting 12 points of upgrades on a big ship seems more feasible because big ships can take twice or more as many hits as a Tie Fighter/Headhunter.

That is by far the most convoluted, difficult to implement fix I've seen for ordnance yet. I like the idea some, but it is too out there to happen, and definitely not the "easiest".

One other thought on this comment:

"(Target locks NEVER need to be spent to fire? Okay, fine, but what particular value do weapons that already do not discard the target lock gain in exchange? etc)"

Why do you think other weapons should get a gain in exchange? If you bump ordnance, and then bump everything else, then ordnance is still worse! Ordnance needs to "gain" something on the other options. Or are you speaking about something like prockets, which I would argue gets used much more often, for precisely the reason that you get to keep the focus? (I'll add that it would still retain its advantage of using focus instead of TL)

I think at this point it is futile to speculate on fixing ordinance. i'm just going to wait and see what wave 7 brings.

Interesting idea to say the least, but I agree with those who have already commented above: it's probably one of the more difficult fixes to implement. My favorite fix I've seen thus far is: canceling all the evade dice if the ordnance hits.

After all, if you fire a missile or torpedo you either dodge it and nothing happens or you don't, in which case your going to take a lot of damage, not a piddly one hit for a large explosion. It might make them overpowered, but thats what they need go be in order to be worth their points: a serious threat that could wreck someone's day. This change would also make them viable additions to competitive lists.

Just my two cents on the subject!

I like the intention of this idea, but it is a poor overall solution as it effectively only addresses tournament play. While high profile, tournaments constitute a small percentage of the games of x-wing being played.

... that change the behavior of how some weapons work more than others to accommodate the proposed revision. (Target locks NEVER need to be spent to fire? Okay, fine, but what particular value do weapons that already do not discard the target lock gain in exchange? etc)

This is why the fix "if a weapon requires you to spend a token to fire it, you may use the normal effects of that token during that attack" works so well. Ordnance that doesn't require you to spend the token aren't changed at all, and are still better than other ordnance because you might roll well and be able to keep the token, but the ordnance that requires spending the token still requires spending it, but gets buffed for its trouble, bringing it much more in line with other weapons. It's a one sentence errata to the core rules that buffs the correct weapons without screwing the other weapons and without making anything overpowered. Cluster missiles would probably require additional clarification, but then what DOESN'T make clusters more confusing.

This is the most elegant fix possible. i suppose it's 'boring', but it's so simple and resolves most if not all of the problems with missiles & torpedoes (...well, some of them will still suck, but whatever; that's a different issue).

Gross and hard to read.

Would 5 free points of ordnance be better? Honestly, just reducing the cost doesn't quite fix it either. As 4 Dice Proton Torps and 4 dice Conc Missiles are still super underwhelming when shot considering the actions required.

Also, ordnance just simply tends to work better with ships with multiple actions: PTLs and Vader. And higher PS.

An upgrade that reduces cost of all 4 or more cost ordnance by 1 and also gave you a free focus when you fired the ordnance would do the trick i think. Still expensive, but it might feel more rewarding.

I'm hoping wave 7 or 8 will give us an upgrade like this:

Expanded Ordnance Bay

<Missile> or <Torpedo> slot (the first upgrade that you can choose which kind of slot to put it in)

When attacking with a secondary weapon that has the same upgrade icon that this card is equipped to and it instructs you to discard it to perform the attack, do not discard it.

3(-ish) points

I like this for a few reasons:

1. It gives bombers (TIE Bombers, Y-Wings, etc.) an advantage over ships that have only one missile or torpedo slot.

2. Since it takes up a missile or torpedo slot, it forces you to make a choice between carrying a variety of missiles or torpedoes or just one that you can use throughout the whole game.

3. It doesn't completely overshadow Munitions Failsafe since it is more expensive.

4. It frees up the modification slot on multi-ordnance ships since they don't need Munitions Failsafe.

Why is this better? The problem with ordinance is that it's too restrictive to use. You've got range, TL or Focus requirements, and then (omitting Nera) you have to be in FRICKING ARC!

So yeah. More bad is not the solution.

... that change the behavior of how some weapons work more than others to accommodate the proposed revision. (Target locks NEVER need to be spent to fire? Okay, fine, but what particular value do weapons that already do not discard the target lock gain in exchange? etc)

This is why the fix "if a weapon requires you to spend a token to fire it, you may use the normal effects of that token during that attack" works so well. Ordnance that doesn't require you to spend the token aren't changed at all, and are still better than other ordnance because you might roll well and be able to keep the token, but the ordnance that requires spending the token still requires spending it, but gets buffed for its trouble, bringing it much more in line with other weapons. It's a one sentence errata to the core rules that buffs the correct weapons without screwing the other weapons and without making anything overpowered. Cluster missiles would probably require additional clarification, but then what DOESN'T make clusters more confusing.

It isn't a "one sentence errata to the core rules", as it involves changing the text on every weapons card, itself. It's not in the core rules, but printed ON the proton torpedo (etc) cards that you have to 'discard your target lock and this upgrade to...', so every card so effected would be changed.

That's a lot of work!

As to 'what doesn't make clusters more confusing'...well, the suggestion in the OP, for one. How they are used isn't changed at all, the only thing different is that you get to decide whether to include them as an option or not before the game, and then decide on a match-by-match basis if they are appropriate to use.

It still doesn't fix the fact the ordinance itself isn't work the points at its current state. Too many points for not enough damage output.

It is not the damage output but the restrictions of Target Lock and the lack of result modification to give you better probability. The point cost is also secondary. If you want to find out what the problem with ordenance is take 2 proton torpedoes and compare it to HLC.

Or how about this for a practice. 2 Blue Squadron pilots. 1 has HLC and one has 2x proton torpedoes. See who comes out on top most of the time. or try Tie Defender with HLC vs Tie Bomber with 2x proton torpedoes. See what works see what cause the other to not work. and then work from there.

That's as good a test as any.

2 Blues with a pair of proton torpedoes each vs 2 Blues with an HLC each...vs a Decimator. I'd call those roughly comparable, which is good as they are priced comparably. (I think I'd probably prefer the pair of torpedoes, myself, as the guaranteed crits really helps when trying to eat through that much hull...)

It isn't a "one sentence errata to the core rules", as it involves changing the text on every weapons card, itself.

No, it doesn't. Proton torpedos would still require you to spend the target lock. Nothing changes that. But the game rules would specify that any weapon that requires you to spend a token to fire it gains the benefits of that token. Absolutely no changes to the cards required. At. All. That's WHY it's a good fix, because it leaves the cards alone.

It isn't a "one sentence errata to the core rules", as it involves changing the text on every weapons card, itself. It's not in the core rules, but printed ON the proton torpedo (etc) cards that you have to 'discard your target lock and this upgrade to...', so every card so effected would be changed.

That's a lot of work!

As to 'what doesn't make clusters more confusing'...well, the suggestion in the OP, for one. How they are used isn't changed at all, the only thing different is that you get to decide whether to include them as an option or not before the game, and then decide on a match-by-match basis if they are appropriate to use.

The point is that you could insert that one sentence into the core rules and it would solve the problem.

The suggestion in the OP, and no offense is intended to you personally, is just dreadful. Adding an entirely new side board zone and rules set to govern said zone is not an 'easy tweak', and it in no way addresses the problems with the viability of munitions outside of specific pilots. No, I suppose it doesn't make cluster missile itself more confusing, but that's hardly a value add when your proposal bolts on entirely novel mechanics that are going to trip-up new players before they even get ships on the table.

I think you need to look at the intended functionality of the overpriced munitions cards to address the current problem they have (afterall, munitions cards that are finding their place on ships have an intended function that they can reliably perform: Proton Rockets giving added punch to a knife fighter that is doing what it wants to do, for example, and Hot Shot Blaster giving a Hail Mary hope to ships fighting arc dodgers at close range):

When would I want to shoot a Proton Torpedo or Concussion Missile? Well, ideally when I'm at range 3 with my opponent, especially if they're jousting me - I'm rolling at least one additional red die with a built in modifier, they do not get their bonus green die and, when they shoot back, I do get my bonus evade die (unless they shoot their own ordnance. Or an HLC. Or a Mangler...).

It's already kind of tough to get an opponent who understands the rule of 11 into the ideal R3 trade, and if i do get them there, it'll only be for 1 turn. This is why Munitions Failsafe is still a pretty bad solution; sure, you get to keep the weapon if you whiff. Will you ever get the R3 trade again? Probably not (even in the event of a max range K-turn joust, you will probably lack a TL on the target you want to shoot at).

A fix for ordnance needs to make them reliably points-efficient for the single turn in the game where you get the R3 trade if your piloting earned it for you. Various proposed abilities to keep them around for second shots doesn't address this and sideboards don't address this, but a simple change to the TL mechanic governing them does.

I like the theory of having some preset options of what ordinance to bring, but it is a little messy.

The one rule I do like from ST attack wing is you can spend an action to reload your missile/torpedo.

Could that work here in X-wing though.

It changes little as far as rules/errata but means you can you that missile/torpedo again in future turns

I'll be honest, this is one of the messiest and least effective solutions I've seen. I just don't like the idea that a list can change dynamically when you face an opponent. I also fail to see how this fixes the inherent cost effectiveness problem of ordnance, or how it would work for non-tournament play.

Ordnance's problem is it costs too much for what you get over the primary attack. This doesn't fix it.

You'd either need to make it usuable in addition to the primary attack or somehow reduce the cost per shot.

I think the best solution I've liked so far is that

"if the attack hits, the defender suffers the full value of the attack dice"

More damage, high agility ships don't suffer as much but when something does get hit, it goes actually boom. That would make something like apt's almost too powerful like they should be.

So it's generally regarded that, by and large, most ordnance is not worth its points. Some manages to pull of somewhat better usability than others, but overall, it's generally not something you want to sink a lot of points into as you rarely get that value out of it.

And, to that end, there has been no end of suggestions as to how the game might be re-worked to make the ordnance options viable.

I think a lot of the ideas I've read (IMHO) tend to go a bit too far, though. And, worse, require selective re-writes that change the behavior of how some weapons work more than others to accommodate the proposed revision. (Target locks NEVER need to be spent to fire? Okay, fine, but what particular value do weapons that already do not discard the target lock gain in exchange? etc)

Coming out of the last tournament I was in that I used ordnance, though, an idea struck me - basically, building on an idea others have suggested a few times, but tweaking it. (Actually, the new method of selecting debris as part of the list is really what made the solution to the problem jump to the forefront of thought...)

Anyway, the tweak is small, easy to implement, and really has no unusual weapon-specific interactions...while, IMHO, fixing the worst problem about ordnance in that bringing the wrong thing to the battle might make it completely useless.

During list building, a ship with ordnance can be noted to have a certain number of points of ordnance as part of the list build. The player may then note down three possible ordnance configurations for the ship that is equal to, or less than, the points allocated in their list for that ship's ordnance. The player is free to choose which of the three options they will use for each ship so equipped during any given match setup, as part of the ship placement on the table (and so this decision occurs within PS and initiative sequence in case of opponents who each have that decision to make).

As an example of how that might work - a player might bring to a tournament a list like:

• Howlrunner (18) + Push the Limit (3) + Stealth Device (3) = 24
• Academy Pilot (12) = 12
• Academy Pilot (12) = 12
• Academy Pilot (12) = 12
• Scimitar Squadron Pilot (16) + Ordnance (4) = 20

  - Option A: Flechette Torpedo (2) + Flechette Torpedo (2) = 4

  - Option B: Proton Torpedo (4) = 4

  - Option C: Proximity Mines (3) = 3

• Scimitar Squadron Pilot (16) + Ordnance (4) = 20

  - Option A: Flechette Torpedo (2) + Seismic Charge (2) = 4

  - Option B: Cluster Missiles (4) = 4

  - Option C: Proximity Mines (3) = 3

====

100 pts

...as players will be limited in the options they have to choose from, it solves some of the issue of other variants on the idea, where players might take too long puzzling through their choices...and as the optional changes are limited to ordnance, only, it prevents the paralyzing delay of someone trying to re-work their entire list.

It also solves potential MoV wonkiness for partial-list-kills, as the ordnance allocated is what is scored - regardless of whether the ship is actually carrying that much at the time or not (in the above example, the TIE Bombers are always treated as 20-pt ships for scoring, regardless of which ordnance choices they made).

And at the same time, I think this would do a lot to fix the "problem" - the flexibility to make some minor tweaks to the ordnance selection based on the opponent you are facing (dual Firespray? Pass on the flechettes!) should help make the ordnance options somewhat more valuable.

Thoughts?

Although I like your idea, it's doesn't fix ordnance in friendly games. I would like a fix that takes care of that too.

I dont know if someone has mentioned this before, but IMO easiest fix would be to make a correction in main rules that defender rolls one less agility dice against ordnance attacks. That would benefit all ordnance, including homing missiles. Re-roll fixes don't help homing missiles so much. That would be thematically ok too - locked missiles/torpedos aren't so easily evaded.

Ordnance would be best attack choice, when defender is in range 3. Even better than canons and that is thematically ok too, ordnance should be better than other attacks in long range. Wedge/Outmanouver elite with ordnance would be 2 less agility dice for defender. Tie Defender/Advanced/Z-95 (N'dru anyone?) with cluster missiles probably with outmanouver/predator would be a nice threat too. How about GS A-wing flanker with both predator + outmanouver abilitys? Still ordnance would be "one use only", so I think it wouldn't be too powerful.

No need to change pointcost of cards this way, and if someone still thinks ordnance isn't powerfull enough - lets add Predator/howlrunner ability to reroll one dice in ordnance attacks, but IMO that would make them too powerfull.

So for the 3rd "fix ordnance" thread I've seen.

I feel that it comes down to the almighty value of points. Why take a PT, single use, loss of TL when for 3 more points you can have a HLC for loss of guaranteed crit and still use TL initial mechanics?

The mechanics need to be address in the rulebook versus throwing out more cards, because that forces the "must have" situation.

@Serpentarius you make a good point

Primary Weapons:+1 <red> @ R1 and +1 <green> @ R3 as mentioned in the rulebook.

Secondary (non ordnance): negate benefits

Secondary (ordnance): +1 <green> @ R1 and +1 <red> @ R3

Although APT is R1 only, but is semi TL use because you get 3 eyes automatically.

How would you keep the ordnance single use, added range benefits, and still have the use of TL mechanics as well?

I dont know if someone has mentioned this before, but IMO easiest fix would be to make a correction in main rules that defender rolls one less agility dice against ordnance attacks. That would benefit all ordnance, including homing missiles. Re-roll fixes don't help homing missiles so much. That would be thematically ok too - locked missiles/torpedos aren't so easily evaded.

Ordnance would be best attack choice, when defender is in range 3. Even better than canons and that is thematically ok too, ordnance should be better than other attacks in long range. Wedge/Outmanouver elite with ordnance would be 2 less agility dice for defender. Tie Defender/Advanced/Z-95 (N'dru anyone?) with cluster missiles probably with outmanouver/predator would be a nice threat too. How about GS A-wing flanker with both predator + outmanouver abilitys? Still ordnance would be "one use only", so I think it wouldn't be too powerful.

No need to change pointcost of cards this way, and if someone still thinks ordnance isn't powerfull enough - lets add Predator/howlrunner ability to reroll one dice in ordnance attacks, but IMO that would make them too powerfull.

I like this idea alot. It's simple and to the point. So your really saying ignore the range 3 and subtract 1 agility, and for range 1-2 subtract 1 agility.

My idea that our group uses: Is When you have secondary weapons that require you to break a target lock, you do not remove the Target Lock until the end of turn and you may use that target lock in the attack.

This helps all around at all ranges

So for the 3rd "fix ordnance" thread I've seen.

Really? You must be new. I think I have been seeing about 3 a week for the past 3-4 months.