I know, I know .. there seems to be a thousand posts about fixing ordnance.

I have considered the issues with ordnance and read many good ideas. I considered the issues at hand and came up with a possibly feasible solution .. at least for house rules anyway.

Do you recall the X-Wing series of both games and novels? Ordnance was fired at greater ranges than the lasers. With this in mind I developed the following cards. Additionally, I wanted to enhance certain ships and allow them to play a more unique role in the game. For example, the TIE Bomber is rarely seen as anything but a cheapish TIE. It lacks its one defining unique characterisitc .. its ability to throw out a tonne of ordnance.

Also, if you recall from Stackpole's X-Wing novels, pilots could obtain Target Locks and pass target data to one another.

This fix gives Bombers, Y's etc a little more 'character', encourages players to utilise larger ships in a more supportive manner and gives a more 'real feel' to ordnance ranges.

Another factor I like about this is it mixes up playstyles and list building a little. Does your opponent attack the bomber or the escort first? Keeps us all on our toes.

I have yet to try it and need to iron out some little wrinkles: Points, limiting modifications to certain ships, should Long Range Sensors be a crew card, etc. Any input is appreciated (apart from the obligatory "Oh gee .. another ordnance fix post!") Will this work? Is it clearly flawed? Does X need to be tweaked? What are your thoughts?

-- REVISED CARDS ON PAGE 4 --

Mmm, combine ships with Long Range Targeting with Colonel Jendon's Lambda Shuttle with Advanced Sensors. Which can lock onto anything on the board, then pass it's locks to nearby allies. Then watch TIE Bombers eat Corvettes alive, like they're supposed to.

I like the idea behind Long Range Sensors, but . . . I think it would be better as a zero-point sensor slot for all ships, large and small. As a mod, it's competing with Engine Upgrade, which is practically an auto-include, and Experimental Interface, which is pretty much the only reason not to take Engine. I also like the Long Range Targeting card, but it would be nice to see a way for it to be combined with Munitions Failsafe or Extra Munitions. Personally, I'd make it a missile or torpedo slot upgrade, and then cut out the last sentence (since anything equipping it will have multiple munitions slots anyway).

Also, seeing as I'm a game-designing English nerd who likes wordz and stuffz lyke that ( ), I would tweak the wording to something like this:

At the start of the End phase, you may assign one of your blue Target Lock tokens to a friendly ship with the Long Range Targeting upgrade

and

Increase the maximum range of all <missile> and <torpedo> secondary weapons by two, to a maximum of 5.

The former clears up timing issues (so that you can now swap TLs before, say, Corran's double-tap, which could come in handy if the ship with the TL is about to die or the ship receiving the TL has an R7 astro) while the latter stops some d*** from starting an argument about you being unable to fire those Proton Torps at Range 3.

No matter how good the idea is if you don't have a Huge ship you can't use this (range 5). That puts it out of reach for too many people. Creative idea though.

I also like the Long Range Targeting card, but it would be nice to see a way for it to be combined with Munitions Failsafe or Extra Munitions. Personally, I'd make it a missile or torpedo slot upgrade, and then cut out the last sentence (since anything equipping it will have multiple munitions slots anyway).

I kinda like that. It's like the long range warheads take up twice as much space because of the extra fuel they need to reach further.

Alternatively, you could simplify this by simply having Long Range Proton Torpedo or Long Range Concussion Missile upgrade cards that take up two slots(like Palpatine does), and just give those weapons the 5 range.

Not bad, but the fix needs to address the enormous cost of ordinance along with the action economy. If it's a mod, it competes with Munition Failsafe so the fix is going to have to be an unrestricted title that lowers cost of ord., adds action econ, and doesn't cost a fortune (preferably free). A wishlist item would be a title that does all that and adds a torpedo slot so you can take Extra Munitions.

Anything less, leaves me feeling not so...

The only way you could make this work is to have it as part of an 'aces' pack and in that pack put a card 'range 4 -5' extension to the ruler.

If you could do that i think range 5 ordnance would be really quite characterful

The only way you could make this work is to have it as part of an 'aces' pack and in that pack put a card 'range 4 -5' extension to the ruler.

If you could do that i think range 5 ordnance would be really quite characterful

Couldn't you just lay two of the range 3 rulers end-to-end?

The only way you could make this work is to have it as part of an 'aces' pack and in that pack put a card 'range 4 -5' extension to the ruler.

If you could do that i think range 5 ordnance would be really quite characterful

And why would this be so hard to do? The K-wing and TIE punisher should have been an 'aces' pack anyway, with enough room to really fix ordinance.

Of course I was really looking for more in the way of Assault Gunboat/Missile Boat pack for imperials, with the T-wing and R-41 Starchaser released in both Rebel and Scum colors (T-wing for rebels first, R-41 scum first). Or K-wing and T-wing for rebels and R-41 and some large non-bounty hunter ship for scum, like a scum assault shuttle.

Or just release the Scimitar bomber like they should have! Would it really have looked worse than the Punisher?

Or just release the Scimitar bomber like they should have! Would it really have looked worse than the Punisher?

Scimitar can suck it. It's not a real TIE.

Im not saying its hard to do at all.

What i am saying is the practicalities of the card stock.

Unless you had seperate extension for ranges 4 and 5 the card that fits in the FFG standard clam pack would be too short.

In a large ship box though you could either fit one on diagonally or could have them seperate and 'hinged' like the epic ruler.

The point being is that R5 ordinance to me is a great idea but you need to make it so that anyone buying a ship capable of using it also gets the ruler upgrade as part of that ship.

Its the model FFG use. If you buy a ship and have the core set they include *everything* you need to play that in a game... hence anything with boost or ion rules gets ion tokens and rules cards. I cant see FFG deviating from that.

You'd get a lot of annoyed people if they bought say a K wing and then found they needed to buy a tantive or raider etc to use it to full effect.

Im not saying its hard to do at all.

What i am saying is the practicalities of the card stock.

Unless you had seperate extension for ranges 4 and 5 the card that fits in the FFG standard clam pack would be too short.

In a large ship box though you could either fit one on diagonally or could have them seperate and 'hinged' like the epic ruler.

The point being is that R5 ordinance to me is a great idea but you need to make it so that anyone buying a ship capable of using it also gets the ruler upgrade as part of that ship.

Its the model FFG use. If you buy a ship and have the core set they include *everything* you need to play that in a game... hence anything with boost or ion rules gets ion tokens and rules cards. I cant see FFG deviating from that.

You'd get a lot of annoyed people if they bought say a K wing and then found they needed to buy a tantive or raider etc to use it to full effect.

I know, I know .. there seems to be a thousand posts about fixing ordnance.

I have considered the issues with ordnance and read many good ideas. I considered the issues at hand and came up with a possibly feasible solution .. at least for house rules anyway.

Do you recall the X-Wing series of both games and novels? Ordnance was fired at greater ranges than the lasers. With this in mind I developed the following cards. Additionally, I wanted to enhance certain ships and allow them to play a more unique role in the game. For example, the TIE Bomber is rarely seen as anything but a cheapish TIE. It lacks its one defining unique characterisitc .. its ability to throw out a tonne of ordnance.

Also, if you recall from Stackpole's X-Wing novels, pilots could obtain Target Locks and pass target data to one another.

This fix gives Bombers, Y's etc a little more 'character', encourages players to utilise larger ships in a more supportive manner and gives a more 'real feel' to ordnance ranges.

Another factor I like about this is it mixes up playstyles and list building a little. Does your opponent attack the bomber or the escort first? Keeps us all on our toes.

I have yet to try it and need to iron out some little wrinkles: Points, limiting modifications to certain ships, should Long Range Sensors be a crew card, etc. Any input is appreciated (apart from the obligatory "Oh gee .. another ordnance fix post!") Will this work? Is it clearly flawed? Does X need to be tweaked? What are your thoughts?

To get around the range 5 issue and sort of combine the effect of both of your cards you could change the wording to read something like.

Sensor Feed

Modification, 2pt

When determining range and arc to attack with a torpedo or missile secondary weapon, you may measure from any friendly ship to any enemy ship.

So if your wing mate is at range 4 from you, but has that ugly YT-1300 right in front of him, you can still launch your adv. protons. You still have to spend your lock, you still want to have a focus, etc. but you can use a fighter screen to provide the data to get the hit.

^ I like that one!

Alternatively, the range 4-5 ruler and action economy could be fixed with something like this:

Barrage Assisting Transponder

(torpedo)(torpedo), Limited

Your upgrade bar gains (torpedo)(torpedo).

Whenever a friendly ship within range 1-3 attacks, and after declaring a valid target for their attack, they may skip the rest of their attack phase. If they do so, you may perform a (torpedo) or (missile) attack against their chosen target.

The requirements of your attack may be fulfilled by you or the original attacker.

With this, a bomber could potentially attack a target at range 5 if they have a friendly ship at range 3 that, in turn, has a target at range 3. You could distribute the attack requirement costs among many ships, also allowing the bomber to attack several times per round as long as it has munition left and the different friendly "target painters" can provide the requirements for the attack and have the target at range. Potentially, a bomber could release all its munition in a single round, lowering the risk of being shot down full with ammunition.

I will re-word the cards tonight and consider changing them from mods.

I'm not really concerned about the R5 ruler. If players choose to play test this 'fix' they can just use their R3 ruler and then measure an addition R2 from the end.

As for the cost of munitions, I feel that this method would not require them to be cheaper as you are firing from a range that cannot be easily countered. The arc of fire increases as the range increases - making it more difficult for opponents to evade. Additionally, opponents cannot counter-strike as they simply lack the range. This is a feature of this fix. You are paying for an attack that can be fired from complete safety. I feel this negates the high price of current munitions and places them in a competitive price range.

I will play with the card design and wording tonight and re-post the upgrades.

Your comments and suggestion are all appreciated.

EM's fine for multi-ordnance ships. It's X-wings, StarVipers and Z-95s that need the help.

EM's fine for multi-ordnance ships. It's X-wings, StarVipers and Z-95s that need the help.

I don't think those ships should be getting their fixes through munitions though. That's not their jam.

Those guys need some help in other ways .. particularly the lovable X-Wing.

Its so fresh

But sadly it won't help me with my Jonus + 3 Scimitars list, because there is no room for a large ship.

Or just release the Scimitar bomber like they should have! Would it really have looked worse than the Punisher?

Scimitar can suck it. It's not a real TIE.

I just thought it would be better to release something that was a bit different than a TIE bomber on steroids. Plus Thrawn. Cause he was cool.

EM's fine for multi-ordnance ships. It's X-wings, StarVipers and Z-95s that need the help.

I don't think those ships should be getting their fixes through munitions though. That's not their jam.

Those guys need some help in other ways .. particularly the lovable X-Wing.

X-wings however desperately need a Rogue squadron/Rogue leader title giving barrel roll or something, and a 'torpedo' upgrade that gives a system slot.

Starviper needs the upgrade slots from Virago to be standard.

There, fixed.

I think every ordnance fix I've seen has been too complicated. I propose a simple etra. If a ship has one or more ordnance slots than it may be equipped with one Standard ordnance upgrade card.

I define Standard as costs 4 or less.

Not every imperial starfighters needs to be a TIE.

Incorrect.

I have the feeling it fixes ordnance only on a certain ships type in combination with another certain ships type and leaves out a lot of cases where it actually migth be too strong.

E.g. you would suddenly have range 4 Advanced Photon Torpedoes on Rhymer.

You still have problems justifying ordnance on a lot of other ships. You still have problems with low pilot rating ships beeing able to even shoot their ordnance at all. I think your fix rather fixes a special case that you are looking for to be honest.

More general and very simple suggestion:

You don't need a target lock anymore to shoot ordnance in arc and may fire ordnance out of arc if you spend the target lock.

I think every ordnance fix I've seen has been too complicated.

I don't think any simple fix can actually fix ordnance.

I find my simple ordnance solution to be a very sound fix.... It would shake up the game and really diversify the tournament scene again. I think my proposed fix would also "fix" many other "overcost" ships this forum has been complaining about as well. No need for FFG to print new cards, just an internet FAQ update.

I find my simple ordnance solution to be a very sound fix.... It would shake up the game and really diversify the tournament scene again. I think my proposed fix would also "fix" many other "overcost" ships this forum has been complaining about as well. No need for FFG to print new cards, just an internet FAQ update.

I guess it depends what you define as "fixing" ordnance.

If fixing just means "make it worth the point cost competitively" then yes, there are some simple fixes you could make.

If fixing means "make them do what they're meant to do according to source material, and still be playable" like it does to me, then no, no simple change is going to fix ordnance.

You still have problems justifying ordnance on a lot of other ships. You still have problems with low pilot rating ships beeing able to even shoot their ordnance at all. I think your fix rather fixes a special case that you are looking for to be honest.

I have no special cases in mind. I am trying to find a means to:

a: make ordnance worth taking.

b: give it an advantage over primary weapons without being a go-to option - keeping true to real life and source material.

c: make specific ordnance carrying vehicles unique in their roles (TIE Bombers, Y-Wing, etc).

I'm not saying that my proposed fix is THE fix and flawless in the current game, but it does address these issues. There are no FAQs required and no changing of the cards/rules.

The suggested fix (with some tweaking) gives players a choice to take ordnance platforms or not .. and still permits them to use ordnance in its current form. It opens up new play styles and list building theory.