Okay, I know we're all bored of this topic, and the chances of FFG just straight up changing a rule seems slim (let's ignore the Cloaking rule), so realistically this is just for house rules.

Clearly FFG is trying to fix this obvious issue by adding cards, munitions failsafe, the new one coming out that gives them two charges etc. I think those are good ideas, but should be in addition to lower points costs and a complete revamp in munitions.

The best ideas I've seen on here are:

1. 10% of your points, rounding up, can be used on munitions.

2. Munitions can be fired when outside of your firing arc.

3. Action to reload your munitions.

1. I like the first one because, hey, doesn't matter how much they suck to use, everyone will take them! It does mean that every list will pretty much have to include a ship that can take them, otherwise you're playing at a 10 point disadvantage.

2. Thematically this is great. I feel missiles should be fire and forget. It adds a lot of versatility to them, and would almost make me consider Y-wings as viable torpedo platforms!

3. This is how it's done in Attack Wing, I believe. I like the idea! It still takes up a turn requiring an action so it's not just total missile spam. Cool.

And finally, the entire reason for this thread (aside from boredom, and me mentally prepping for a tournament by getting in the right headspace by Sunday), my own idea.

Any critical hits rolled from munitions, ignore shields (the way a proton bomb does).

I think my rule is pretty good, obviously!

Thoughts?

#1 is an option, but not the best option.

My rules are simple as in my sig:

You could use just 1, but all 3 make ordnance better and what it should be. My group uses these all the time in friendly games and it really helps and make ordnance part of the game.

Well for one thing trying to enhance a mechanic that has become all but defunct there is one thing to know. Fixes on paper do not always play out on the game. As you know there have been many suggestions and threads on this topic. Just as there have been many theories on why torpedoes and missiles are so bad. It comes down to you pay points for something that is not guaranteed, you trade an action that would help you to gain those hit in exchange for more attack dice which may or may not get more hits. And the target lock is one of the toughest to use actions. What is wrong with missiles and torpedoes has already been discussed to death so I'll just list what is wrong with your suggestions for a fix.

1. Fractioning off a point limit or making an elastic point section for missiles and torpedoes IMHO is never a good adjustment in a point based list building game. The slot system does a good enough job in allowing for customization without allowing for broken combos. Also if you separated munition points from regular points how will that affect initiative (say a 99 point build w/5 points of missile upgrades vs a 100 point build) Also don't forget about the ever so important MOV where adding points to small fragile ships is worse off. This suggestion just won't work when looking at the bigger picture.
2. We already can do that. It is called Nera Dantiels from the Rebel Aces pack. And while she is good at what she does still it is not a list winning ability. You pay a lot of points for a skill 5-7 target lock requiring trick shot. And once you are out that is it. To be honest while the shooting out of arc is nice (i use proton torpedoes boosted by Jan Ors (HWK-290) it doesn't win that many games.
3. And it has been said it past posts that the one time use only is not that much of a problem. Again I keep using the comparison between a HLC and 2x Proton torpedoes for 2 attacks. The HLC wins all the time (with only 2 attacks), that tells me that the one time shot is not the problem with missiles and torpedoes. IF you are still not convinced then try a fully loaded bomber with the extra munitions proxies. I'm sure you will find the bomber struggling to spend all its munition tokens before being destroyed.

I put forth my opinion in another thread already but:

And finally, the entire reason for this thread (aside from boredom, and me mentally prepping for a tournament by getting in the right headspace by Sunday), my own idea.

Any critical hits rolled from munitions, ignore shields (the way a proton bomb does).

I think my rule is pretty good, obviously!

Thoughts?

I like this -- in fact, to be honest, I would have all hits ignore shields, although that might get a bit ridiculous against, say B-Wings*. Plus, unless I'm mistaken, that works with the lore, since torpedoes and missiles are projectiles (which generally aren't affected by ray shields).

*Speaking of which, does it bug anyone else that the B-Wing has the same structural integrity and solidity as a TIE fighter?

I like this -- in fact, to be honest, I would have all hits ignore shields, although that might get a bit ridiculous against, say B-Wings*. Plus, unless I'm mistaken, that works with the lore, since torpedoes and missiles are projectiles (which generally aren't affected by ray shields).

All of the ships in this game use Deflector Shields, not Ray Shields.

*Speaking of which, does it bug anyone else that the B-Wing has the same structural integrity and solidity as a TIE fighter?

Not really. The B-Wing is easily the most fragile looking ship in the game. It looks like some kind of paper kite.

I like this -- in fact, to be honest, I would have all hits ignore shields, although that might get a bit ridiculous against, say B-Wings*. Plus, unless I'm mistaken, that works with the lore, since torpedoes and missiles are projectiles (which generally aren't affected by ray shields).

All of the ships in this game use Deflector Shields, not Ray Shields.

*Speaking of which, does it bug anyone else that the B-Wing has the same structural integrity and solidity as a TIE fighter?

Not really. The B-Wing is easily the most fragile looking ship in the game. It looks like some kind of paper kite.

Haha ... the B-Wing even looks like it is prone to technical issues of all manners. With all the S-Foils and rotating cockpit.

A single hit and the mechanics would probably fail. Thats the reason why they need strong shields.

To me its absolutely plausible that B-Wings and Tie Fighters share the same hull value.

And E-Wings are made of tin foil ^^

Also plausible. They needed to be lighter then X-Wings for less momentum and more speed.

...

But back to the topic:

Just ask yourself a single question:

Why you would equip your X-Wings with Proton Torpedos?

If you got an answer, you might have a solid idea for an ordnance fix.

Okay, I know we're all bored of this topic, and the chances of FFG just straight up changing a rule seems slim (let's ignore the Cloaking rule), so realistically this is just for house rules.

Clearly FFG is trying to fix this obvious issue by adding cards, munitions failsafe, the new one coming out that gives them two charges etc. I think those are good ideas, but should be in addition to lower points costs and a complete revamp in munitions.

The best ideas I've seen on here are:

1. 10% of your points, rounding up, can be used on munitions.

2. Munitions can be fired when outside of your firing arc.

3. Action to reload your munitions.

1. I like the first one because, hey, doesn't matter how much they suck to use, everyone will take them! It does mean that every list will pretty much have to include a ship that can take them, otherwise you're playing at a 10 point disadvantage.

2. Thematically this is great. I feel missiles should be fire and forget. It adds a lot of versatility to them, and would almost make me consider Y-wings as viable torpedo platforms!

3. This is how it's done in Attack Wing, I believe. I like the idea! It still takes up a turn requiring an action so it's not just total missile spam. Cool.

And finally, the entire reason for this thread (aside from boredom, and me mentally prepping for a tournament by getting in the right headspace by Sunday), my own idea.

Any critical hits rolled from munitions, ignore shields (the way a proton bomb does).

I think my rule is pretty good, obviously!

Thoughts?

I agree with Marinalver - An adjustable point system is fine for casual games but I don't think it would work for tournament games.

I love the fire outside your arc idea but since there is already a pilot with that ability, FFG will probably not just change the rules that way. Also, so far anyway, they seem like they are doing everything they can to avoid using the same ability on different cards. If they ever get past their own little restriction on that, then maybe we could see some astromechs, EPTs or system upgrades that let you fire ordnance from outside your arc, or maybe even at any range once the initial target lock has been established.

How about this guy

R7-Y0 (pronounced "Why Naught") 3pts.

When attacking with a torpedo secondary weapon, you may attack ships outside your firing arc and ignore all range restrictions.

I also like the reload idea in theory, but when you consider that you still have to get in range for the lock, keep your target in range and arc, then reload, then target lock again all while you have no focus tokens for defense. Odds are slim that you will ever use the second shot.

And finally, the entire reason for this thread (aside from boredom, and me mentally prepping for a tournament by getting in the right headspace by Sunday), my own idea.

Any critical hits rolled from munitions, ignore shields (the way a proton bomb does).

I think my rule is pretty good, obviously!

Thoughts?

I like this -- in fact, to be honest, I would have all hits ignore shields, although that might get a bit ridiculous against, say B-Wings*. Plus, unless I'm mistaken, that works with the lore, since torpedoes and missiles are projectiles (which generally aren't affected by ray shields).

*Speaking of which, does it bug anyone else that the B-Wing has the same structural integrity and solidity as a TIE fighter?

The problem with this is that each and every munitions card so far has been point costed related to other munitions cards. By just saying critical hits are better, now you strengthen some cards like proton torps, but weaken others and put their cost out of balance.

The best fixes are the one that require no changes to existing cards, and buff them all equally. This type of change does not do that.

I think ordnance has potential to become a viable game mechanic with a simple range increase. In all the games and books, torps and missiles had a far greater range than lasers. So, for example, let us boost the range to 5.

Ahh, but how do we acquire TLs? This is the beauty of the game. Consider Jendon in Lambda Shuttle with ST321 feeding locks to a bomber. It puts the shuttle back into its intended role (support) and gives the bomber back the one thing that makes it unique.

It also changes the game dynamic. Bombers will stay back out of the dog fight. Opponents who choose not to take ordnance will have to prioritse targets, do you hit the bomber or the flanking escort?

I believe that if FFG designed some upgrades with this mind we would see ordnance and the ships that carry them used in a very different, thematic and exciting manner.

Ordinance becomes a serious joke when you start comparing it to other things you can buy for the points. "Hmm, should I get a Proton Torpedo or Engine Upgrade?" Unless you're playing in a narrative game where you need to hit something with a torpedo this shouldn't be a tough decision. And even then, if you're playing in a scenario/objective based game, the points that the attacker has to spend on the Torps should be included in the balancing of the mission.

This is the main issue that I have with ordinance. It appears that they had no idea what to balance the cost of it against so they just winged it and got it incredibly wrong. The evidence of this is clear when they released the Syck which has to actually PAY A TAX to use already overcosted (and worthless) ordinance. It's like there's a team at FFG that is solely responsible for designing ordinance, and they never actually play the game.

This crap is so broken that even if you made it free, the Syck would still have to pay to use it. That's freaking sad. Very poor designing there.

Ordinance becomes a serious joke when you start comparing it to other things you can buy for the points. "Hmm, should I get a Proton Torpedo or Engine Upgrade?"

I do a lot of "fully loading" my ships. So I end up taking a lot of ordnance simply because I've already put on an Engine or Shield Upgrade, but now I can ALSO take missile, etc.

And finally, the entire reason for this thread (aside from boredom, and me mentally prepping for a tournament by getting in the right headspace by Sunday), my own idea.

Any critical hits rolled from munitions, ignore shields (the way a proton bomb does).

I think my rule is pretty good, obviously!

Thoughts?

I like this -- in fact, to be honest, I would have all hits ignore shields, although that might get a bit ridiculous against, say B-Wings*. Plus, unless I'm mistaken, that works with the lore, since torpedoes and missiles are projectiles (which generally aren't affected by ray shields).

*Speaking of which, does it bug anyone else that the B-Wing has the same structural integrity and solidity as a TIE fighter?

The problem with this is that each and every munitions card so far has been point costed related to other munitions cards. By just saying critical hits are better, now you strengthen some cards like proton torps, but weaken others and put their cost out of balance.

The best fixes are the one that require no changes to existing cards, and buff them all equally. This type of change does not do that.

I'm REALLY hopeful for the K-wing, I just want to load one to the brim, and blow everything up, but I know that doing that would be the least competitive ship possible. Even less than Fel's Wrath :'(

Ultimately, I think that there's no fixing ordinance without a major change of the base rules. Failing that, then yes, upgrades that change all munitions make the most sense. Well, kind of.

But right now, not only am I using a slot, whether it be modifications, a title, or another munitions slot, they're charging me for it. Frankly, Munitions failsafe should be built in. So should the new munitions card. We need a lot of baseline upgrades, and the current fixes are still hindering us ON TOP of taking an underpowered munitions card.

As I was listening to NOVA squadron today, someone pointed out that an HLC puts out 4 damage EVERY TURN you shoot. If you fire it twice, you've made it more cost effective than most munitions you can take. Fix that, and you've fixed munitions.

I don't mind the down sides to munitions, needing a target lock etc. but right now, they're just broken. Just give us a munitions card pack that redoes all of the munitions lowering their point cost by 2. Sorted. (Yes, I'm aware this would make certain munitions free!)

**** it, I started this thread positively, and you've dragged me down!

Ordinance becomes a serious joke when you start comparing it to other things you can buy for the points. "Hmm, should I get a Proton Torpedo or Engine Upgrade?"

I do a lot of "fully loading" my ships. So I end up taking a lot of ordnance simply because I've already put on an Engine or Shield Upgrade, but now I can ALSO take missile, etc.

This is perfectly valid, but you're now entering the realm of ship obesity.

Outside of the utility issues that ordinance has, cost will remain the first barrier to entry. Ordinance is too situational to justify the cost and yet the designers of the game have doled out some pretty arbitrarily hefty costs on missiles and torps, especially when you compare the cost of these items to other useful upgrades and EPTs.

It's almost as if the cost of Ordinance is some artifact of a time when the devs thought the game would have more scenario based play instead of Deathmatch.

Ultimately, I think that there's no fixing ordinance without a major change of the base rules. Failing that, then yes, upgrades that change all munitions make the most sense. Well, kind of.

But right now, not only am I using a slot, whether it be modifications, a title, or another munitions slot, they're charging me for it. Frankly, Munitions failsafe should be built in. So should the new munitions card. We need a lot of baseline upgrades, and the current fixes are still hindering us ON TOP of taking an underpowered munitions card.

As I was listening to NOVA squadron today, someone pointed out that an HLC puts out 4 damage EVERY TURN you shoot. If you fire it twice, you've made it more cost effective than most munitions you can take. Fix that, and you've fixed munitions.

I don't mind the down sides to munitions, needing a target lock etc. but right now, they're just broken. Just give us a munitions card pack that redoes all of the munitions lowering their point cost by 2. Sorted. (Yes, I'm aware this would make certain munitions free!)

**** it, I started this thread positively, and you've dragged me down!

No don't get down. They can fix ordnance but it has to be with simple and elegant upgrades, not rule changes.

What drives me crazy is when I see a lot of threads with fairly good ideas for fixes but then other people will respond that it would make ordnance overpowered. As you said if you take 2 - just 2 - shots with an HLC it is more cost effective than any missile or torpedo. So lets look at a couple of potential upgrade cards and how they compare to HLC.

R6, 3pt astromech that lets you fire torpedoes at ANY range AND outside your firing arc.

Heavy Warheads, 2 pt Modification that adds one automatic hit to all torpedo attack rolls.

Gold Squad 18

R6 3

Heavy Warheads 2

Adv Prot Torp 6

Extra Mun 2

- Total 31

Blue Squadron 22

FCS 2

HLC 7

- Total 31

These two ships both come in at 31 pts with a pilot skill of 2, 1 agility and 8 total hit points. Both can take target lock and focus actions. Dials are similar with a small edge to Blue, plus Blue can barrel roll and FCS gives it better action ecnomy.

The Blue has the barrel roll action for getting enemies into arc or for avoiding arcs or it can focus for offense of defense since it gets free TL's with its FCS. This guy gets 4 dice every attack (use primary at R1) with target locks modifying most of them. This will average about 3 hits per turn or more if some focus tokens are available.

The Gold will need to get the target lock and can fire APT's without a focus, but with the APT changing up to 3 blanks to eyes, he really needs to hold his fire a turn to get the focus action. This makes him a target if he wasn't one already, but since his astromech lets him shoot anywhere once he has the lock, he can try to get to the edge of range 3 for the lock and then run if he can.

When its all said and done, over a 6 turn span (assuming either of these ships can survive that long) the Blue probably gets 5 shots off for a total of 20 dice and about 16 hits. Meanwhile, the Gold gets 2 torp shots that should yield 12 hits if focused, plus maybe 3 more shots with his primary for 3 more hits. That's 16 vs 15 hits. The biggest difference is the B's attacks are probably getting 1-2 damage through after evade rolls every turn while the Y will most likely get no damage through with the primary attacks, but get 3-4 through with the torps.

So, are these types of munitions upgrades OP are should something like them be out by wave 8 at the latest?

Ultimately, I think that there's no fixing ordinance without a major change of the base rules. Failing that, then yes, upgrades that change all munitions make the most sense. Well, kind of.

But right now, not only am I using a slot, whether it be modifications, a title, or another munitions slot, they're charging me for it. Frankly, Munitions failsafe should be built in. So should the new munitions card. We need a lot of baseline upgrades, and the current fixes are still hindering us ON TOP of taking an underpowered munitions card.

As I was listening to NOVA squadron today, someone pointed out that an HLC puts out 4 damage EVERY TURN you shoot. If you fire it twice, you've made it more cost effective than most munitions you can take. Fix that, and you've fixed munitions.

I don't mind the down sides to munitions, needing a target lock etc. but right now, they're just broken. Just give us a munitions card pack that redoes all of the munitions lowering their point cost by 2. Sorted. (Yes, I'm aware this would make certain munitions free!)

**** it, I started this thread positively, and you've dragged me down!

No don't get down. They can fix ordnance but it has to be with simple and elegant upgrades, not rule changes.

...

More or less a soft fix would be needed. Not to say that a hard fix with errata (like what they did to phantoms and autoblasters) could work. But thin thing is you have to consider how an errata fixes affect all ships, pilots and upgrades not to mention those to come in the future.

For example, the OP suggestion to allow torpedoes to fire out of arc will simple make Nera useless in her form since she is the only pilot that can do that. That little bit of an oversight is a sign of a poorly planned proposal. When you change something there will be things that benefit and things that get downgraded. With those changes you might find the things you wanted to benefit not work and the things you wanted to not help actually get buffed.

I can't find the post to quote it right now but ordinance ignoring shields sounds great to me.

I've been a fan of making a FAQ-fix in the manner of the Phantom, wherein any header with Attack(Target lock) or Attack(Focus) actually grant the bonus of having spent said token on the attack.

This puts Proton Torpedos and Concussion Missiles into thoroughly scary territory, whilst Ion Pulse Missiles and Homing Missiles become the best buddies of the TIE/adv, who can fire them without even spending their target lock for the future rounds... it's a sledgehammer in terms of action economy and according firepower potential, whilst leaving the traditional limitations and costs intact.

But as noted, there are always potentially unintended effects. Jonus, for one, finds there are fewer dice to reroll. Krassis too. Redline's new power starts to look a little less impressive, too. That said, both of these could be fixed by some sort of upgrade card (which considering how ubiquitous ordnance is, would probably need to be a Modification) that had a similar effect of either Deadeye or Han Solo; letting you focus your dice instead of rerolling them. That'd give the reroll-oriented bonuses a benefit, and potentially even make Redline hilarious - one die to reroll, the other to focus would be a heck of a punch.

Even there, though, one has to be careful - Focused Prockets pack awesome firepower, and are already possible. Are they too much when the ship gets to hang onto the original focus token for defense in the same round, too, or does that simply help keep high-AGI ships better intact without needing PTL alongside? Blaster Turrets also become dramatically more potent - every ship gets to fire them like they're the Moldy Crow, so long as they get their Focus action for the round. This is good, but I'd worry that at 4pts they'd be suddenly too cheap. It doesn't fundamentally break them, but they may well be a point or two too good instead.

Any such change will need to be careful. But I'd love for something that acts as a blanket patch, so they could come to the fore instead of people buying a select few missiles (Which, I note, tend to all be cheap) and a select handful of edge case pilots. Because as it stands, it's pretty dismal - and simply releasing better munitions going forward won't fix the backlog of weapons and pilots that collect dust.

What if ordnance is intended to be used against huge or large ships?

In the flight sims, shooting a missile at mid or long range against an agile fighter was almost always a miss, because the fighter would do evasive maneuvers until the missile run out of fuel.

Torpedoes were even worse against fighters. They excelled, though, against big ships (like corelian transports YT-1300 or corvettes)

When they buffed the missiles in the multiplayer game, the game became almost unfun, because you couldn't avoid an advanced missile most of the time.

dobulepost

In the games, missiles were great against smaller ships, slow torpedoes against larger.

What if ordnance is intended to be used against huge or large ships?

In the flight sims, shooting a missile at mid or long range against an agile fighter was almost always a miss, because the fighter would do evasive maneuvers until the missile run out of fuel.

Torpedoes were even worse against fighters. They excelled, though, against big ships (like corelian transports YT-1300 or corvettes)

When they buffed the missiles in the multiplayer game, the game became almost unfun, because you couldn't avoid an advanced missile most of the time.

While I agree with you about Torpedoes, Missiles are designed for taking out starships.

There's a reason why the Missile Boat was the very specific counter for the TIE Defender, the most maneuverable ship in Star Wars: TIE Fighter.

Personally, I like it when the game mechanics try to replicate the lore as closely as possible. That kind of thing can lead to balance issues...if this wasn't a point based game. But since it is, my philosophy is "If something seems overpowered, just increase it's points cost until it's no longer overpowered for it's cost." Likewise, if something seems underpowered, lower it's cost.

Simple fix. Just FAQ that HLC needs a target lock to fire, isn't spent. Would that be more line with missiles and torpedoes?

An ideal ordinance fix should be able to be done with the least amount of impact to the exsisting game (and its mechanics) as possible. I've seen some really good ideas that just are too complicated or too costly to work for anything but house rules. There have also been some really creative, simple and within reason to implement. Borrowing from some and adding my own twist here is my take on ordinance fix.

All Crits rolled for ordinance ignore any shields and go directly to hull and Defenders may not modify or re-roll defense dice versus ordinance. This makes large ships (less defense dice) more vulnerable to ordinance, it increases the firepower of ordinance and all this can be fixed with a simple errata post.

An ideal ordinance fix should be able to be done with the least amount of impact to the exsisting game (and its mechanics) as possible. I've seen some really good ideas that just are too complicated or too costly to work for anything but house rules. There have also been some really creative, simple and within reason to implement. Borrowing from some and adding my own twist here is my take on ordinance fix.

All Crits rolled for ordinance ignore any shields and go directly to hull and Defenders may not modify or re-roll defense dice versus ordinance. This makes large ships (less defense dice) more vulnerable to ordinance, it increases the firepower of ordinance and all this can be fixed with a simple errata post.

At first I felt that not being able to modify defence dice was a bit too much, but then that basically just means no focus, and a few droids can't be used. And yes, all they'd need to do is update the core game rules, which realistically isn't that big a deal for such a small change.

I approve!