Hey all-

I was wondering if anyone knew the rationale behind not applying range bonuses to secondary weapons.

It seems to me that the most powerful (and most often take in major tournaments) SW are the TLT and HLC, which are very powerful and on top of that get to be range 2-3, and ignore the extra green. The weak SW are often range 1-2.

Would allowing for an extra red at one and an extra green at 3 help fix this imbalance? It would certainly make things less confusing, as they would be trated the same as primary weapons.

Note that I don't think this should apply to ordinance.

Note that even 3 green at range 3 are not a great defense against these weapons (barring the few ships that can take AT) because they are stripping the extra green.

My guess is that the idea is these weapons were designed to work at these ranges, and therefore don't get an added benefit or detriment from being used at them.

The lack of range bonus was in the game long before those weapons were designed. They were designed with that existing rule in mind, so changing it now would be a significant nerf.

I'm not an expert, but I think that the range restrictions (i.e. you cant TLT or HLC at range 1) and the cost of the upgrades, would have to be set much lower, because as it is now, if you choose to put a secondary weapon on 2 ships, you are limiting your opportunity cost of adding another filler ship all together. So taking these upgrades limit your squad building and dictate how you need to fly to make it effective.

Much like any ship/upgrade there is a risk to flying it, and the "NON-application" of range bonuses for secondary weapons, changes the balance of how you prefer to approach a battle, (distance to fight). In an offensive game, with the range bonuses, everyone would want to be at range 1 as much as possible, if you put range bonuses for defense at range 3 this would, imo overly de-incentivize using these upgrades all together,

Some cannons like the like the autoblaster would thus be too strong IMO to be able to put through up to 4 un blockable damage... could get crazy.

Further with ordinances, there is already such a disadvantage to bringing them a range bonus for defense as a long range strike option.

Hey all-

I was wondering if anyone knew the rationale behind not applying range bonuses to secondary weapons.

It seems to me that the most powerful (and most often take in major tournaments) SW are the TLT and HLC, which are very powerful and on top of that get to be range 2-3, and ignore the extra green. The weak SW are often range 1-2.

Would allowing for an extra red at one and an extra green at 3 help fix this imbalance? It would certainly make things less confusing, as they would be trated the same as primary weapons.

Note that I don't think this should apply to ordinance.

Note that even 3 green at range 3 are not a great defense against these weapons (barring the few ships that can take AT) because they are stripping the extra green.

As for cannons? Well, they came after torpedoes so they got stuck with the same rules. If you ask me, they should but it's too late, they're already priced what they're priced.

To be fair, you have to pay 6 points for a TLT and 7 for a HLC, the 2nd and 3rd most expensive upgrades in the game.
With this in mind, I think you should be able to use them at long range without the detriment of suffering the defender having an extra evade die.
2 HLCs on imperial ships is the same cost as a Black Sqn TIE for example