Well any cannon that has range 3 will have a nerf while cannons at range 1 will get a buff.

It would put range 1 combat more effective for high pilot skills and nerf the range 3 sniper builds.

Missile and torpedoes will not necessarily get a buff as much as they would be slightly better at range 3 than a cannon but will definitely fail at range 1.

These secondary weapons will get a solid nerf

Heavy Laser Cannons

These secondary weapons would get a buff

All turret upgrades

Autoblasters.

These weapons will get a net nerf as in any balance shifts will likely pull power and efficiency from them

Cluster missiles

Proton Rockets

APT

Turret upgrades would stay the same.

Maybe another option here is to also put an "inverted range bonus" on missiles and torpedoes.

Give the attacker an extra red at Range 3 (fluff: the missiles/torpedoes are faster than the ships they are locked into, so they have enough room at range 3 to correct for their initial trajectory), and the defender an extra green at Range 1.

.

Advanced Proton Torps and Proton Rockets only work at range 1. Your suggestion would kill them.

As to the OP the idea was suggested long ago. It wasn't any more popular then. Secondary weapons either have range limitations, like HLC and Autoblaster or Damage restrictions like HLC and Ion or both, or they have a limited effect, hello Mangler. Your idea would kill the mangler, and HLC both would find themselves overcosted. The Ion would also probably die as it gets useless at range 3.

It is not the worst idea ever, but it is not a good idea.

Ordnance is not being so widely shelved because cannons are a better value for the cost. Ordnance is being so widely shelved because virtually anything else you could put in your list for the points is a better value for the cost.

And to me this is largely the restrictions. You normally have to be

1. in a specific range band

2. Have a target lock

3. Get rid of that target lock

We use ordnance a lot as we just find it fun but i can understand its too much of a risk in a tournament environment. I think though i'd use it a lot more if you just had to *have* a lock to use ordance and you could then expend that lock for a reroll as you would with a normal weapon.

Range bands make sense.

I used to like ordance in GWs 'battlefleet gothic' , that was launched and moved as a seperate card template at a set speed nd kept going so even if you missed there was a chance it could smash into something else IIRC

Ordnance is not being so widely shelved because cannons are a better value for the cost. Ordnance is being so widely shelved because virtually anything else you could put in your list for the points is a better value for the cost.

And to me this is largely the restrictions. You normally have to be

1. in a specific range band

2. Have a target lock

3. Get rid of that target lock

We use ordnance a lot as we just find it fun but i can understand its too much of a risk in a tournament environment. I think though i'd use it a lot more if you just had to *have* a lock to use ordance and you could then expend that lock for a reroll as you would with a normal weapon.

Range bands make sense.

I used to like ordance in GWs 'battlefleet gothic' , that was launched and moved as a seperate card template at a set speed nd kept going so even if you missed there was a chance it could smash into something else IIRC

The issue is that they offer at best, a 25% increase in damage.

But a dice unmodified attack does less damage than a 3 dice modified one on average. For the point cost... It isn't worth the slightly better alpha strike.

I mean what's better. A Z-95 with a Concussion Missile, or a Z-95 with a stellar pilot ability and much better pilot skill.

What's better. 3 Z-95s with missiles or 4 Z-95's. Missiles are somehow even less useful on the ships that can use them effectively(High Pilot skill ships(for target lock ease) with the ability to heavily mod their dice.

Just about any upgrade slot offers greater damage increases and reliability for the points.

Recon Spec is far and away better than a missile.

Elite Pilot Talents. Predator adds more damage in two-three attacks than any missile in the game. Push thd limit does even more.

The list goes on.

A 1 time use upgrade that adds an small amount of damage for a lot of added effort should cost maybe 2-3 points. Not 4-6.

Some of the more recent additions have been better, but most are still awful.

The new fix is decent.

But the if it hits it does x damage option is among the best I've read.

Some of the missiles require some text modification.(Proton torps do 3 and a crit for instance)

But its contextual as well isnt it (and i know some things only require you to say have a focus like prockets etc)

For us ordance is quite random and more fun in some games. It can be utterly devastating or bloody worthless.

In the first campaign game of our ongoing narative campaign i had two ships totally one shotted by cluster missiles and homing missiles. They totally paid for themselves but i realise on *average* this isnt the case. In our house/campaign rules once you've fitted a ship with ordnance its cheaper to just reload it i future but thats no use to 100 point six rock deathmatch games.

I still think that ordnance would be more attractive if the target lock wasnt expended and/or you could get more than one shot.

Perhaps if you 'tapped' an ordnance card and tilted it sideways first time it was fired and discarded it the second time it would be 'cheaper' (as in half the price) and more thematic (always seemed odd that proton torps are standard on loads of rebel ships but you had to pay loads to get 'one shot') but still wildly variable for damage.

Part of me always feels thought that missiles should be 'hard to hit you with' but almost guarantee a kill if they do. Perhaps a bit too 'real world' but once they are locked on and fired you really shouldnt be able to survive being hit by a dedicated anti starfighter missile.

Its very very late in the UK and ive got insomnia so my minds not totally on form but perhaps something where you rolled to hit as normal (red dice versus green dice) but if you did hit the damage output from the missile was a set amount (4/5 points whatever). A bit like the reverse of ION weapons where you can score 4 'hits' but only one causes damage.

But its contextual as well isnt it (and i know some things only require you to say have a focus like prockets etc)

For us ordance is quite random and more fun in some games. It can be utterly devastating or bloody worthless.

In the first campaign game of our ongoing narative campaign i had two ships totally one shotted by cluster missiles and homing missiles. They totally paid for themselves but i realise on *average* this isnt the case. In our house/campaign rules once you've fitted a ship with ordnance its cheaper to just reload it i future but thats no use to 100 point six rock deathmatch games.

I still think that ordnance would be more attractive if the target lock wasnt expended and/or you could get more than one shot.

Perhaps if you 'tapped' an ordnance card and tilted it sideways first time it was fired and discarded it the second time it would be 'cheaper' (as in half the price) and more thematic (always seemed odd that proton torps are standard on loads of rebel ships but you had to pay loads to get 'one shot') but still wildly variable for damage.

Part of me always feels thought that missiles should be 'hard to hit you with' but almost guarantee a kill if they do. Perhaps a bit too 'real world' but once they are locked on and fired you really shouldnt be able to survive being hit by a dedicated anti starfighter missile.

Its very very late in the UK and ive got insomnia so my minds not totally on form but perhaps something where you rolled to hit as normal (red dice versus green dice) but if you did hit the damage output from the missile was a set amount (4/5 points whatever). A bit like the reverse of ION weapons where you can score 4 'hits' but only one causes damage.

In a narrative setting fun is derived from facing dangerous challenges and finding clever ways to face them. Chucking ordnance isn't that. Outflying something is fun. Setting up an excellent flank is fun. Lying your face off to bluff your way past an imperial patrol is fun.

Rolling all hits on a roll is fun. Rolling no hits on a painstaking and costly set up is not. But at least with a good flank you've managed a long term solution.

Still missing from the thread: any evidence, or even a line of reasoning, that explains why cannons represent a balance problem to be solved.

We're well past the point where that's a part of the discussion. It's been pretty well declared a defunct point.

Still missing from the thread: any evidence, or even a line of reasoning, that explains why cannons represent a balance problem to be solved.

We're well past the point where that's a part of the discussion. It's been pretty well declared a defunct point.

Well, it has been almost two hours since anyone discussed the rule changes offered in the OP. That's fourteen dog-hours, so I guess that counts as "well past".

I'm not sure we really need another ordnance fix thread, though, do we?

But its contextual as well isnt it (and i know some things only require you to say have a focus like prockets etc)

For us ordance is quite random and more fun in some games. It can be utterly devastating or bloody worthless.

In the first campaign game of our ongoing narative campaign i had two ships totally one shotted by cluster missiles and homing missiles. They totally paid for themselves but i realise on *average* this isnt the case. In our house/campaign rules once you've fitted a ship with ordnance its cheaper to just reload it i future but thats no use to 100 point six rock deathmatch games.

I still think that ordnance would be more attractive if the target lock wasnt expended and/or you could get more than one shot.

Perhaps if you 'tapped' an ordnance card and tilted it sideways first time it was fired and discarded it the second time it would be 'cheaper' (as in half the price) and more thematic (always seemed odd that proton torps are standard on loads of rebel ships but you had to pay loads to get 'one shot') but still wildly variable for damage.

Part of me always feels thought that missiles should be 'hard to hit you with' but almost guarantee a kill if they do. Perhaps a bit too 'real world' but once they are locked on and fired you really shouldnt be able to survive being hit by a dedicated anti starfighter missile.

Its very very late in the UK and ive got insomnia so my minds not totally on form but perhaps something where you rolled to hit as normal (red dice versus green dice) but if you did hit the damage output from the missile was a set amount (4/5 points whatever). A bit like the reverse of ION weapons where you can score 4 'hits' but only one causes damage.

I can't say spending a ton of work and points that might fail can actually be considered fun.

In a narrative setting fun is derived from facing dangerous challenges and finding clever ways to face them. Chucking ordnance isn't that. Outflying something is fun. Setting up an excellent flank is fun. Lying your face off to bluff your way past an imperial patrol is fun.

Rolling all hits on a roll is fun. Rolling no hits on a painstaking and costly set up is not. But at least with a good flank you've managed a long term solution.

You're either not reading the post or missing the point.

Ordance is fun for *us* , and it is subjective, because we like games with variety, we dont really care that much who wins or whats 'cost effective' or i would not have put a Tie advance in my game roster for the campaign.

We like the fact that is *can* (and has) been utterly devastating at times,its fun for us.

On the flip side i dont find playing phantoms, falcons with 3p0 or any of the other 'super meta' choices that much 'fun'.

I like to actually get a bit of use out of the stuff i've bought in expansions.

if it doesnt work and isnt a useful a 'spend' of 4 or 5 points as say a cannon then i really dont care if it added some variety to the game.

But its contextual as well isnt it (and i know some things only require you to say have a focus like prockets etc)

For us ordance is quite random and more fun in some games. It can be utterly devastating or bloody worthless.

In the first campaign game of our ongoing narative campaign i had two ships totally one shotted by cluster missiles and homing missiles. They totally paid for themselves but i realise on *average* this isnt the case. In our house/campaign rules once you've fitted a ship with ordnance its cheaper to just reload it i future but thats no use to 100 point six rock deathmatch games.

I still think that ordnance would be more attractive if the target lock wasnt expended and/or you could get more than one shot.

Perhaps if you 'tapped' an ordnance card and tilted it sideways first time it was fired and discarded it the second time it would be 'cheaper' (as in half the price) and more thematic (always seemed odd that proton torps are standard on loads of rebel ships but you had to pay loads to get 'one shot') but still wildly variable for damage.

Part of me always feels thought that missiles should be 'hard to hit you with' but almost guarantee a kill if they do. Perhaps a bit too 'real world' but once they are locked on and fired you really shouldnt be able to survive being hit by a dedicated anti starfighter missile.

Its very very late in the UK and ive got insomnia so my minds not totally on form but perhaps something where you rolled to hit as normal (red dice versus green dice) but if you did hit the damage output from the missile was a set amount (4/5 points whatever). A bit like the reverse of ION weapons where you can score 4 'hits' but only one causes damage.

I can't say spending a ton of work and points that might fail can actually be considered fun.

In a narrative setting fun is derived from facing dangerous challenges and finding clever ways to face them. Chucking ordnance isn't that. Outflying something is fun. Setting up an excellent flank is fun. Lying your face off to bluff your way past an imperial patrol is fun.

Rolling all hits on a roll is fun. Rolling no hits on a painstaking and costly set up is not. But at least with a good flank you've managed a long term solution.

You're either not reading the post or missing the point.

Ordance is fun for *us* , and it is subjective, because we like games with variety, we dont really care that much who wins or whats 'cost effective' or i would not have put a Tie advance in my game roster for the campaign.

We like the fact that is *can* (and has) been utterly devastating at times,its fun for us.

On the flip side i dont find playing phantoms, falcons with 3p0 or any of the other 'super meta' choices that much 'fun'.

I like to actually get a bit of use out of the stuff i've bought in expansions.

if it doesnt work and isnt a useful a 'spend' of 4 or 5 points as say a cannon then i really dont care if it added some variety to the game.

I'm not saying play the best things ever. Especially not in a narrative setting. But the fun should still be derived from using skill and cunning. Not being so invincible you can just chuck coin flips until you win.

I guess what I'm saying is that if I were running some form of X-Wing narrative there would be far more tension than would allow for ordnance as is to be viable.

Making something bad work through skill is great. Making something bad work through luck is dull. And ordnance, for the most part, functions off of luck in this game. A skilled player should be working to mitigate luck. Not increase it. In eveey setting.

That's what games like this are. Controlling luck.

And that's exactly where ordnance goes so very very wrong.

You are too narrow on winning and maximization. Things that have a high luck factor can be fun. Because the times it works, its memorable.

Still missing from the thread: any evidence, or even a line of reasoning, that explains why cannons represent a balance problem to be solved.

It's not that they're imbalanced, it's that flying against cannon ships isn't as fun because it strips range modifiers from the game, which is an aspect of it that I enjoy. It also doesn't make any sense, being close to an enemy makes them easier to hit with your guns, being farther away makes them more difficult to hit. But not if it's a cannon! Why?

You are too narrow on winning and maximization. Things that have a high luck factor can be fun. Because the times it works, its memorable.

Exactly.

Took the words out of my mouth.

used to play a napoleonic 20mm wargame called 'to the sound of the guns'

That had very little 'luck', it even used an 'average die' (d6 with no 1s or 6s) and it was about getting in the first volley with clean muskets in the right formation against the wrong formation. You were better if your troops were trained to fight British style (brits and portugese).

It as considered a very good rules set.

Very very boring with no luck in it though (or luck stripped to a minimum)

Lot of cross referencing tables of musket frontage and range etc...