No long explanations. Just quick and dirty. Only that much: For this approach I started asking myself why would I equip a X-Wing with Proton Torpedoes? This lead to the following approach.

The best part of this fix would be that it could be done by an errata only, just add those two general rules:

"When attacking with torpedo upgrades, if your attack hits, you may add 1 [hit] result to your roll."

"When attacking with missile upgrades, you may change 1 of the defenders [evade] results to a blank result."

Since in general torpedoes were made to hunt the whales, while missiles were made to take down small and agile vessels. So this fix should cover this aspect as well.

I wonder how this would affect the cost efficiency of ordnance.

Would ordnance become worthwhile or even OP?

Maybe a friendly Mathwinger could tell this?

The first option would sort of work, but should probably be a normal hit, and be contingent on the attack hitting (so as to give high agility targets some defence against it), and also apply to both missiles and torpedoes equally.

So something like (add the following to all missile and torpedo cards):

If this attack hits, add 1 [hit] result to your roll.

But even this parses down to:

If this attack hits deal 1 additional damage. (I like this as it means a missile/torpedo that hits does at least 2 damage).

As for the second option, mechanically it works, but it makes very little game sense. I guess you can justify it with the homing aspect, but they have specific missiles for that (sort of). In general I am not against it, and the divergence between missiles and torps is interesting.

Having played with a Jan Ors, Z-95 missile spam list, 1 extra dice does make the ordnance significantly more effective and gets them to about where they should be (though at significant cost).

The second one makes cluster missiles too good. Especially N'dru cluster missiles.

The second one makes cluster missiles too good. Especially N'dru cluster missiles.

Maybe once Glitterstim releases, before that, not so much. Cluster Missiles aren't even that good on N'Dru (until Glitterstim at least). Two 4 dice attacks with a potential one blank reroll, and if you are lucky focus for one for the rolls....on a 4 HP ship.

Is Outmaneuver N'dru going to steamroll his way up the meta and become the new king?

Or to put it another way, would Cluster Missiles be auto include on Wegde if he could take them? Yeah didn't think so.

My favoured FAQ-style fix for munitions would be to rule that Secondary Weapon attack headings that require a certain token must be available for the attack get the bonus of said token.

So Concussion Missiles and Proton Torpedos get, effectively, a free target lock on the attack, with ways to boost the damage on any remaining blank/focus faces respectively. Homing Missiles and Ion Pulse Missiles get a TL and don't even spend the one you already had (Perhaps a good deal on a TIE Advanced, for one). Cluster Missiles get less benefit, but they're pretty potent already.

Possibly the two things that get craziest are (possibly not co-incidentally) the ones that demand a Focus header: Proton Torpedos end up a focused 5-die attack where you keep your Focus token on the defense, effectively a free one-shot PTL; and Blaster Turrets go from awful-except-on-moldy-crow to scary-so-long-as-you-get-an-action.

I'm not sure if that's enough of a problem to stop it. But it certainly helps things not suck. Just beware the 8pt(!) combo of Deadeye with Adv. Proton Torpedoes...

So something like (add the following to all missile and torpedo cards):

If this attack hits, add 1 [hit] result to your roll.

This would be an option. Nice and sound. I updated the OP.

Changed

"When attacking with missile upgrades, reduce agility value of the defender by 1 (to a minumum of 0)."

to

"When attacking with missile upgrades, you may change 1 of the defenders [evade] results to a blank result."

The second one makes cluster missiles too good. Especially N'dru cluster missiles.

is that a problem?

Changed

"When attacking with missile upgrades, reduce agility value of the defender by 1 (to a minumum of 0)."

to

"When attacking with missile upgrades, you may change 1 of the defenders [evade] results to a blank result."

this will make proton rockets even better it also helps Missiles deal with Autothrusters

and as for your fix for torps its almost like the fix for the Tie Advanced and I say if its good enough for the Tie Advanced

The second one makes cluster missiles too good. Especially N'dru cluster missiles.

is that a problem?

Changed

"When attacking with missile upgrades, reduce agility value of the defender by 1 (to a minumum of 0)."

to

"When attacking with missile upgrades, you may change 1 of the defenders [evade] results to a blank result."

this will make proton rockets even better it also helps Missiles deal with Autothrusters

and as for your fix for torps its almost like the fix for the Tie Advanced and I say if its good enough for the Tie Advanced

The Tie Advanced fix was one of my inspirations, of course.

And for missiles its quite the opposite what Autothrusters do.

So this was basically just a new application of already existing rules - but as a new kind of a 'general rules' for a specific family of upgrade cards.

In the EU, an X-Wing can carry 6 proton torpedos. Luke used a grand total of 2 of them to one shot a death star. There are countless examples in the EU of prot torps being one shot, one kill on Ties, Bombers and Interceptors.

For the sake of even, fun gameplay, I would not want to see a 4pt upgrade that gave you 6 shots to automatically kill 6 enemies. That being said, I have no problem with a 4-6 pt, one shot upgrade, that could - with a lucky attack roll and an unlucky defense roll - one shot ANY small base ship once in a great while. There are many ways that this could be done, rules change, modifications, astromechs, elite talents, ship titles, etc. They do not need to be complicated to do it. And I also would not change the basic mechanics of needing a target lock or focus or whatever. There still needs to be a risk of never getting the shot off, but if the potential payoff is high enough, it may be worth the gamble to try.

Modification, 2pts, Heavy Warheads. When attacking with a Missile or Torpedo: roll 2 additional dice, or add 2 hits to your result, or add one Crit to your results, or the defender rolls 2 fewer dice (I don't care which one of these they all increase ordnance efficiency)

EPT, 3pts, Tactical Combat Training, When attacking with a Missile or Torpedo, roll additional dice equal to your primary weapon value.

Modification 4pts, Long Range Ordnance: When attacking with a Missile or Torpedo, if this attack misses, place a tracking token next to the targeted ship. At the start of the next combat round, roll attack and defence dice for this attack, modifying dice as normal, again. If the attack hits, remove the tracking token. Repeat these steps each combat round until the tracking token is removed.

R6 Astromech 1pt, When attacking with a torpedo, if the targeted ship has at least one red target lock token assigned to it, you may ignore any instructions that require you to use or discard a target lock or focus token to activate the attack.

I could go on and on...

Modification, 2pts, Heavy Warheads. When attacking with a Missile or Torpedo: roll 2 additional dice, or add 2 hits to your result, or add one Crit to your results, or the defender rolls 2 fewer dice (I don't care which one of these they all increase ordnance efficiency)

EPT, 3pts, Tactical Combat Training, When attacking with a Missile or Torpedo, roll additional dice equal to your primary weapon value.

I have always wanted to 1 shot a decimator with colonel vessery and cluster missile...

Any buff that also increases the cost of ordinance is wrong. They're already overcosted to begin with. A +1 hit buff to TL+Proton Torpedoes still makes them worse than Focus+HLC. And with any cost increase, more expensive...

My signature says it all. Here it is again.

Fluff for this is easy. Torpedoes are a single large projectile and thus the extra damage would be appropriate. Missiles/Rockets would consist of multiple smaller projectiles which would be more difficult to evade but less brutal.

I really like the idea put forth. I do see two problems with the Torpedo fix. Ion Torpedos and Flechette Torpedoes. They would need to be exempted from the Torpedo +1 damage. Other than that is a very good idea.

I'm not sure any of the ideas for missiles work? -1agility has no effect on a Decimator and turns all 1 Agility ships into 0 agility. The effect is similar for changing a blank to an evade but not as drastic.

I would suggest the following:

"The defender may not use tokens or re-roll any defense dice during this attack"

The defender gets one shot to make a dynamic evasion maneuver and if he fails he's taking the brunt.

Fluff for this is easy. Torpedoes are a single large projectile and thus the extra damage would be appropriate. Missiles/Rockets would consist of multiple smaller projectiles which would be more difficult to evade but less brutal.

I really like the idea put forth. I do see two problems with the Torpedo fix. Ion Torpedos and Flechette Torpedoes. They would need to be exempted from the Torpedo +1 damage. Other than that is a very good idea.

I'm not sure any of the ideas for missiles work? -1agility has no effect on a Decimator and turns all 1 Agility ships into 0 agility. The effect is similar for changing a blank to an evade but not as drastic.

I would suggest the following:

"The defender may not use tokens or re-roll any defense dice during this attack"

The defender gets one shot to make a dynamic evasion maneuver and if he fails he's taking the brunt.

I don't see any reason why Ion Torps and Flechettes shouldn't profit as well?

For missiles change an evade to a blank. Of course you would be better off attacking Decimators with Torpedos then.

Thats a bit the idea behind it. High agility ships still have good chances to evade the torpedo attack, but if the torp hits, you get at least 2 damage. Missiles reduce the chance to evade - this effect would useless if used against 0 agility targets - such as epic ships. But you would have an advantage against 1 agility ships. Especially 1 agility ships with a golden droid.

My signature says it all. Here it is again.

Weapons Guidance System:

Modification: 0 Pt

When you declare an attack with a [missile] or [Torpedo] upgrade that requires a target lock to be spent. Once per combat phase, you may re-roll any of your dice used in the attack (As if you had a target lock). You may not do this if you already have a target lock token.

Interesting, and similar to my suggestion. Not sure why you restrict it so harshly though; were you worried about Ion Torpedoes and Homing Missiles becoming too effective? I can't help but notice they're as rare in the field of battle as their lock-spendy companions. Hence my broader FAQ-style fix, rather than a Modification. Still, any improvement is an improvement.

My signature says it all. Here it is again.

Weapons Guidance System:

Modification: 0 Pt

When you declare an attack with a [missile] or [Torpedo] upgrade that requires a target lock to be spent. Once per combat phase, you may re-roll any of your dice used in the attack (As if you had a target lock). You may not do this if you already have a target lock token.

...Not an elegant weapon for a more civilised age.

FFG has been pretty good at using elegant solutions to buff things. Yes, mechanically it would improve performance, but it feels like it is just filling cracks and really does nothing to actually make them useable/viable. Also being a modification would be detrimental to its use.

You'll note both of the original suggestions improve overall damage caused by ordnance, irrespective of dice modification. The reason being, that is where ordnance largely falls down. Its potential for damage is low relative to cost (particularly when compared with multi use cannons). There are plenty of ways to use ordnance with both focus and rerolls but they still don't get used.

I like the original ideas because they are relatively simple and produce a nice somewhat fluffy divergence between missiles and torps. I like the "homing" aspect of the missiles represented by the inability to evade them, and the sheer power of the torpedoes (particularly good versus static targets or epic ships (their primary target of opportunity).

That being said, both rules are great house rules, but are difficult to implement into the game wholesale. Adding an errata to add them into the rule book will be missed by a lot of players. Rules cards in packs don't work either since many packs would not contain them. So we are stuck with it being a great idea that is difficult to implement short of X-wing 2.0.

I am probably going to try them out as house rules and add them to my casual games.

I'm not really sure why missile vs torpedo needs to be a huge difference. They're subtle in a sense, but the differences are real enough - even if I kind of wish Ion Pulse Torpedos and Ion Torpedos had their roles swapped, so it was clearer that missiles were boomy and torpedos whammy.

Yes, those are highly technical terms.

I feel the modification is a bit clumsy, but it's similar effect to the more FAQ-y 'secondary attacks are modified by the token they demand'. Either are worth a shot. The latter has some interesting implications for Blaster Turret too, that I'm not yet sure on, but curious to find out whether it breaks in actual play. You'd usually be spending a Focus on your Ion Turret or Autoblaster Turret shots if you rolled eyes there too, right?

Fluff for this is easy. Torpedoes are a single large projectile and thus the extra damage would be appropriate. Missiles/Rockets would consist of multiple smaller projectiles which would be more difficult to evade but less brutal.

I really like the idea put forth. I do see two problems with the Torpedo fix. Ion Torpedos and Flechette Torpedoes. They would need to be exempted from the Torpedo +1 damage. Other than that is a very good idea.

I'm not sure any of the ideas for missiles work? -1agility has no effect on a Decimator and turns all 1 Agility ships into 0 agility. The effect is similar for changing a blank to an evade but not as drastic.

I would suggest the following:

"The defender may not use tokens or re-roll any defense dice during this attack"

The defender gets one shot to make a dynamic evasion maneuver and if he fails he's taking the brunt.

I don't see any reason why Ion Torps and Flechettes shouldn't profit as well?

For missiles change an evade to a blank. Of course you would be better off attacking Decimators with Torpedos then.

Thats a bit the idea behind it. High agility ships still have good chances to evade the torpedo attack, but if the torp hits, you get at least 2 damage. Missiles reduce the chance to evade - this effect would useless if used against 0 agility targets - such as epic ships. But you would have an advantage against 1 agility ships. Especially 1 agility ships with a golden droid.

Because then you have a 2 point flechette torp doing two damage and a stress every time is gets used. It just doesn't fit it's cost. It's not just the Decimator you've now declared that all agility 1 ships have no defense against missiles. if you're harboring a grudge against Fat Han (as many others are) there are better ways. In fact your idea does little to nothing to C3PO (depending on sequence).

If the Flechette does damage, its gone. I think wou want to refer to the current use with munitions failsafe. An to be honest I don't think thats what FFG had in mind when creating the Flechette. But even then, its not worthwhile to take the Flechette, but I bet it would after the fix.

After all a real ordnance fix would be meta-shaking, since players would eventually use the tons of now still unused upgrade cards. Imagine a X-Wing with a proton torpedo would become a real threat....

My signature says it all. Here it is again.

Weapons Guidance System:

Modification: 0 Pt

When you declare an attack with a [missile] or [Torpedo] upgrade that requires a target lock to be spent. Once per combat phase, you may re-roll any of your dice used in the attack (As if you had a target lock). You may not do this if you already have a target lock token.

This is random and clumsy, like a blaster...

...Not an elegant weapon for a more civilised age.

FFG has been pretty good at using elegant solutions to buff things. Yes, mechanically it would improve performance, but it feels like it is just filling cracks and really does nothing to actually make them useable/viable. Also being a modification would be detrimental to its use.

You'll note both of the original suggestions improve overall damage caused by ordnance, irrespective of dice modification. The reason being, that is where ordnance largely falls down. Its potential for damage is low relative to cost (particularly when compared with multi use cannons). There are plenty of ways to use ordnance with both focus and rerolls but they still don't get used.

I like the original ideas because they are relatively simple and produce a nice somewhat fluffy divergence between missiles and torps. I like the "homing" aspect of the missiles represented by the inability to evade them, and the sheer power of the torpedoes (particularly good versus static targets or epic ships (their primary target of opportunity).

That being said, both rules are great house rules, but are difficult to implement into the game wholesale. Adding an errata to add them into the rule book will be missed by a lot of players. Rules cards in packs don't work either since many packs would not contain them. So we are stuck with it being a great idea that is difficult to implement short of X-wing 2.0.

I am probably going to try them out as house rules and add them to my casual games.

Honestly, IMO action economy is the main reason people don't use them. Low pilot skill pilots cannot get both a target lock and focus, It's their weakness. Ordnance is really geared to help those types of pilots, which at this time it doesn't. My fix is a modification, because these pilots almost never use the modification slot, and it gives an instant boost to those low PS ships. When you think about it, it makes low PS like 2 and 3 relevant again too.

One of the other options I suggested, is a timing fix. Make an Ordnance phase before Primary weapons in the Combat phase. But you can still only attack once during the combat phase

As for the op, I like his idea's, but I think I would change them slightly.

I think FFG really only made the two slots if because they wanted to limit them on various ships. They are basically the same, but are limited.

Torpedoes = Add +1 automatic to your attack hit versus large or huge targets only,

Missiles = Add +1 Automatic hit to your attack versus small targets

By doing this weapons like flechettes and Ion's, still only do one damage and now it gives missiles nitch, and torpedoes a nitch. Plus there is no need to fix cards in any upgrades.

This helps differentiate the two weapons.

Along with this Modifcation:

(About N'Dru + Cluster Missiles + Lone Wolf + Glitterstim) I´m curious if this one isn´t going to be a Scum staple. 2x4 red dice with reroll and Glitterstim converting eyes to hits seems like a good bet in a fat infested meta.

Looking at these ideas would it be overpowered to have all missles work like this:

Torpedos and missles require all rolled hits/crits to be countered with evades or the defender suffers all of those hits as if none were evaded..

Basically a high agi ship is still going to have a decent shot at avoiding an ordnance shot but a big low agi ship is gonna get boned by them. It would make bombers do what they should and be a big slow targets worst nightmare forcing interceptors to kill those bombers. Every other affect of ordnance would remain unchanged. So they will still be slow to fire and rerolls would be hard to acheive. It would just tilt the risk reward back in favor of the points needed.

edit:I would also change this rule for ordnance only to compensate for the all or nothing aspect. I would increase the agi bonus for range by 1. Ergo, at range 1 no bonus, at range 2 +one agi, range 3 +two agi. I think that would better illustrate the point of not trying a long distance shot with a missle or torpedo and grant a significant bonus to getting right in there and shooting one off.

Looking at these ideas would it be overpowered to have all missles work like this:

Torpedos and missles require all rolled hits/crits to be countered with evades or the defender suffers all of those hits as if none were evaded..

Basically a high agi ship is still going to have a decent shot at avoiding an ordnance shot but a big low agi ship is gonna get boned by them. It would make bombers do what they should and be a big slow targets worst nightmare forcing interceptors to kill those bombers. Every other affect of ordnance would remain unchanged. So they will still be slow to fire and rerolls would be hard to acheive. It would just tilt the risk reward back in favor of the points needed.

edit:I would also change this rule for ordnance only to compensate for the all or nothing aspect. I would increase the agi bonus for range by 1. Ergo, at range 1 no bonus, at range 2 +one agi, range 3 +two agi. I think that would better illustrate the point of not trying a long distance shot with a missle or torpedo and grant a significant bonus to getting right in there and shooting one off.

This would turn proton rocket tie advanced into bwing and ywing destroying beasts

Looking at these ideas would it be overpowered to have all missles work like this:

Torpedos and missles require all rolled hits/crits to be countered with evades or the defender suffers all of those hits as if none were evaded..

Basically a high agi ship is still going to have a decent shot at avoiding an ordnance shot but a big low agi ship is gonna get boned by them. It would make bombers do what they should and be a big slow targets worst nightmare forcing interceptors to kill those bombers. Every other affect of ordnance would remain unchanged. So they will still be slow to fire and rerolls would be hard to acheive. It would just tilt the risk reward back in favor of the points needed.

edit:I would also change this rule for ordnance only to compensate for the all or nothing aspect. I would increase the agi bonus for range by 1. Ergo, at range 1 no bonus, at range 2 +one agi, range 3 +two agi. I think that would better illustrate the point of not trying a long distance shot with a missle or torpedo and grant a significant bonus to getting right in there and shooting one off.

This would turn proton rocket tie advanced into bwing and ywing destroying beasts

yep

Turrent ships (for the most part) would be shaking at tie bombers for once too.