True but remember if you turtle now, everyone on the other fleet will lock on to you too. It makes closing an positioning even more important then ever. Also, they still have to pay for the ordnance, what is stopping the shuttle from doing this now? Nothing.

So the new update:

Target Locking Enemies outside of Range 3:

Action: Gain a target lock outside of range 3, if the target is within your front Arc(Still don't like this since in today's modern world F-14 Tomcats can lock on to 6 different targets and track them at the same time in an 180 degree Arc) but for game balance I understand it. You must have an equipped ordnance (Missiles or Torps)

That's how I view the distance here.

Who to say the 3x3 board isn't 1100k Sq km,

Thankfully the designers at ffg know what they are doing

Thankfully the designers at ffg know what they are doing

And yet you see almost zero ordnance in tournament play... are you saying they get everything right 100% of the time?

Before everyone screams No!!!!

Think about it for a minute:

We tried it at the store in our campaign and it worked very well. Our store owner gave it to everyone for free.

Target Locking Enemies outside of Range 3:

Action: Gain a target lock outside of range 3, if the target is within your front Arc(Still don't like this since in today's modern world F-14 Tomcats can lock on to 6 different targets and track them at the same time in an 180 degree Arc) but for game balance I understand it. You must have an equipped ordnance (Missiles or Torps)

Affects:

- Yes the Shuttle Title would have to be changed

- Instantly Ordnance (Missiles and Torps) become better

- Ships with Target Lock become better

- FCS gets a slight nerf

- Large ships and PWT's will become slightly weaker. Because everyone can lock on to them out of range

Should this be a nerf rule update?

What are the negatives of this, we couldn't really see any at the store, but maybe you can give me some?

Thanks,

Not balanced.

Part of X-Wing is being able to avoid the alpha strike via blocking, etc. Basically free target locks from turn 1 makes alpha strikes more possible.

Wouldn't nerf FCS. TL and focus for the first shot. Free TLs after that. For all the reasons previously mentioned I think it's a bad idea.

Play with it in casual games but I doubt you'll see a rules change. The developers don't get it right the first time, all the time but they do a **** nice job of it. They know what's coming out in future releases and something like this could send them back to the drawing board for a complete re-do.

There are things about X-wing I'm not pleased with. Ordnance and movement after combat has started but I'll deal with it.

Thankfully the designers at ffg know what they are doing

And yet you see almost zero ordnance in tournament play... are you saying they get everything right 100% of the time?

And on that note, what they're doing in future waves concerning ordnance, is a lot better than what the op has suggest

I couldn't imagine what this game would be today if every Tom, ****, and Harrys idea was implemented

I also think it's reasonable, with the caveat that the ship acquiring the TL must have a secondary weapon equipped and available to fire that requires TL.

It won't happen, at least not before a hypothetical X-Wing v2.0 -- because it's errata, and FFG does almost anything possible to avoid errata -- but IMO it's quite reasonable and would be a good rules change.

So the new update:

Target Locking Enemies outside of Range 3:

Action: Gain a target lock outside of range 3, if the target is within your front Arc(Still don't like this since in today's modern world F-14 Tomcats can lock on to 6 different targets and track them at the same time in an 180 degree Arc) but for game balance I understand it. You must have an equipped ordnance (Missiles or Torps)

So can f-14 lock on with no assistance another enemy craft on the other side of the world?

That's how I view the distance here.

Who to say the 3x3 board isn't 1100k Sq km,

Thankfully the designers at ffg know what they are doing

Well I stand corrected

I'm no aviation expert that is for sure lol

Even so, the idea suggested is not a good one as others have said, it takes away an element from the game

It's a game after all and for balance and other purposes the target lock system is fine the way it is

I mean if we want to talk realistic, then why do ships always have their engines on in the movies? One thing that always bugs me.

In space (and space combat)once you reach your desired speed there would be no need for your engine to be on, as you'll continue on at your current speed, but yet they are always continously running.

If we were to have this game played out realistically then once you boost with engine upgrade then you should actually be moving faster and faster, and not the same speed

Doesn't quite work well in this game

This change instantly fixes many of the issues, IMO.

Ordnance, Two Ship Builds, Swarms, X-wing.

That's just it

Other than a few minor things there isn't much fixing needed in this game

Two ship builds can be dealt with without huge changes to the rules

Have you tried every from wave 7 and the Raider?

How do you know that won't change the meta?

Well I stand corrected

I'm no aviation expert that is for sure lol

Even so, the idea suggested is not a good one as others have said, it takes away an element from the game

It's a game after all and for balance and other purposes the target lock system is fine the way it is

I mean if we want to talk realistic, then why do ships always have their engines on in the movies? One thing that always bugs me.

In space (and space combat)once you reach your desired speed there would be no need for your engine to be on, as you'll continue on at your current speed, but yet they are always continously running.

If we were to have this game played out realistically then once you boost with engine upgrade then you should actually be moving faster and faster, and not the same speed

Doesn't quite work well in this game

Can I ask? What element of the game does it take away? I'm getting of tired of people saying it takes away from the game, but not stating where is does that? It like when people say that idea's sucks in a business meeting, but have none of their own idea's.

Well I stand corrected

I'm no aviation expert that is for sure lol

Even so, the idea suggested is not a good one as others have said, it takes away an element from the game

It's a game after all and for balance and other purposes the target lock system is fine the way it is

I mean if we want to talk realistic, then why do ships always have their engines on in the movies? One thing that always bugs me.

In space (and space combat)once you reach your desired speed there would be no need for your engine to be on, as you'll continue on at your current speed, but yet they are always continously running.

If we were to have this game played out realistically then once you boost with engine upgrade then you should actually be moving faster and faster, and not the same speed

Doesn't quite work well in this game

Can I ask? What element of the game does it take away?

It takes away a big part of the strategic element.

And Flying in circles and playing Ring around the Rosie doesn't?

No. Target locks should not be used in missile or torpedo attacks however, its just stupid that they are.

And Flying in circles and playing Ring around the Rosie doesn't?

A practical concern: How do you define 'within their arc' beyond range 3? I can see hilarious edge cases causing arguments aplenty. Remember, if it's an Errata you can't assume everyone has a Range 5 ruler - and even then, what about range 6? Etc, etc, etc.

It doesn't help swarms at all - it hinders the TIE swarm, but boosts the Z-95 one. The shuttle ends up with a title that is literally useless (Not that it's great now, but that's not the point). Advanced Targeting Computers on your TIE Adv get all the stronger, and Corran just bumped up his range-3 shots by being able to turtle and modify his shooting dice.

I really think it's much too heavy a change, alas.

This and many more reason why it'll never be implemented.

House rule it, but don't hold your breath for ffg to make it tournament legal

Also don't forget ecm in star wars is very strong and puts anything we have to shame which is a big reason starfighters are still viable as bombers and don't just get shot down by cap ship defences.

No.

Did the thread die yet?

--

Also, we've tried games of ordnance on ordnance in this area. They're not fun. They're fun maybe the first 2 or 3 times. Then you realize you'd actually rather paly PWT vs PWT. And then you realize how terrible of a mistake you've made.

Can I ask? What element of the game does it take away? I'm getting of tired of people saying it takes away from the game, but not stating where is does that? It like when people say that idea's sucks in a business meeting, but have none of their own idea's.

They've answered that question multiple times. By allowing extreme range target locks (ST-321 nonwithstanding) you make the target lock action automatic when you're out of range. Effectively you make every game start with target locks. You also remove some depth when it comes to lower skill pilots and the additional difficulty of establishing locks.

If you want to pick your target when you shoot grab Deadeye. If your bomber doesn't have a slot for Deadeye, buy a more expensive bomber.

No. Target locks should not be used in missile or torpedo attacks however, its just stupid that they are.

...

...

You have actually seen a Star Wars film, right?

I think what he means, and I agree, is that you shouldn't be required to spend your target lock to use ordnance. Once the missile/torpedo is away, you should still be locked onto the target.

Can I ask? What element of the game does it take away? I'm getting of tired of people saying it takes away from the game, but not stating where is does that? It like when people say that idea's sucks in a business meeting, but have none of their own idea's.

They've answered that question multiple times. By allowing extreme range target locks (ST-321 nonwithstanding) you make the target lock action automatic when you're out of range. Effectively you make every game start with target locks. You also remove some depth when it comes to lower skill pilots and the additional difficulty of establishing locks.

If you want to pick your target when you shoot grab Deadeye. If your bomber doesn't have a slot for Deadeye, buy a more expensive bomber.

The TL action would only be automatic when out of range for a ship that has no other actions that are useful when out of range. If you have Boost or BR, you could quite easily choose one of those to set up a better board position. But a ship with only Focus or TL basically has a wasted action phase at the beginning of the game or when out of the fight. This change would at least make one of those actions have some use.

Ya, no

Bbbbz would just be sick in that case

I would target lock from turn 1

Now when we get into fire range I'll focus

Having 5 ships, 4 of which will have 3 attack dice all with target locks and focus

If you feel that having just a focus and target lock action is a waste early game, then fly something else, or take a shuttle with the title.

As i said in my first post, debate it till your blue in the face, it's not going to make ffg faq it in or make any massive change to the game

If everyone had their way and ffg listened to everyone's ideas we wouldn't be playing xwing, but probably my little transforming ponies that spew razorblades from their eyes

Personally i've always thought 'target lock' and ordnance are 'back to front'.

To me they would be *more useful* and reflect real ordnance a bit better if you had to be within arc to get a TL but you could then fire the ordnance in any direction.

If the weapon requres a lock, it has a guidance system, if it has a guidance system then why do you need it to be in arc?

Doing this would open up a whole 2nd category of 'direct fire' rocket type ordance that worked on focus not TL but could use a TL for extra accuracy.