I get it with ordnance cause its not very good.

But do tlts and hlcs need to ignore range bonuses?

I would like to see a modification card ignoring range rules of secondary weapons during defense. This would be a viable alternative to autothrusters for ships without the boost option like Tie-advanced and T-65. Brobots etc would still take autothrusters.

Because they made the rule before they existed and designed them with that rule in mind.

I think it might change eventually, but it makes the game easier to just pick up and play if they don't mess with that simple set of core rules.

That's a question for the developers. My guess would be to limit their power. Or to add some variation to the game. Or both.

So it makes secondary weapons worth taking. Otherwise are you really ever going to take say twin laser turret for 6 points... not really.

honestly, the range bonus is some weak rng **** either way that can do literally nothing for you.

there's a reason you take thrusters even when you know you won't be facing turrets

honestly, the only time I feel losing the range bonus ever matters is when staring down four hits, especially HLC, that you know you cannot possibly cancel all of (evades notwithstanding, ofc). It's good to have at least that measure of guarantee in such a spikey system

To keep the rules simple.

It adds a layer of strategy to taking secondary weapons. For HLCs, if it were simply a matter of adding red dice, it probably wouldn't change the way you fly that ship.

Instead, taking an HLC encourages you to keep your distance to take advantage of your own bonus defense while denying the enemy's. At the same time, getting into range 1 negates the advantages and means you're often wasting your HLC if you fly too close. Thematically, that makes sense since you are weilding a heavy laser cannon .

For secondary weapon turrets, it was probably for the sake of consistency. Autothrusters is a soft fix that is actually better than an extra green die (assuming you're out of arc).

To keep the rules simple.

Huh? They added a rule to make the rules simpler?

The rules would be exactly one rule simpler if secondary weapons took range bonuses just like primary weapons.

Because thematically it makes sense for Missiles and Torps, the only secondary weapons available at launch. Missiles and Torps have guidance systems and are solid projectiles that won't diminish in power at range and won't be less accurate at range.

The other secondary weapons ignore range bonuses because FFG would rather make simplistic rules that apply to everything instead of errata-ing things and making exceptions.

Whenever changing this is suggested, people throw a fit that HLC won't be balanced anymore even though it's just a straight buff to autoblaster cannon and gives range 1 bonuses to mangler and ion and flechette.

God forbid the HLC ONLY give you 4 dice and not rob your opponent of a defense die.

So it makes secondary weapons worth taking. Otherwise are you really ever going to take say twin laser turret for 6 points... not really.

Yes. Yes I would.

It also buffs your offense, which drives games forward.

To keep the rules simple.

Huh? They added a rule to make the rules simpler?

The rules would be exactly one rule simpler if secondary weapons took range bonuses just like primary weapons.

It's simpler because they have primary attack range bonuses instead of having range bonuses for primary weapons and some types of secondary weapons.

Because they made the rule before they existed and designed them with that rule in mind.

I think it might change eventually, but it makes the game easier to just pick up and play if they don't mess with that simple set of core rules.

This real.

Missiles and torps track their targets so being further away is no protection.

Negating range also balances the cost HLC would be cheaper if you got your extra green.

I wonder how the game would change if Missiles and/or Torpedoes ignored autothrusters.

I wonder how the game would change if Missiles and/or Torpedoes ignored autothrusters.

Not much. It's only at range 3, and ordnance would still have the issues that they have (cost, action economy, etc.)

Because...game.

I wonder how the game would change if Missiles and/or Torpedoes ignored autothrusters.

there were no autothrusters and ordance was still useless back then, so it's not autothruster issue)

I made a card recently for friendly home games that everyone who saw it really liked.

Missle slot

Chaff/Flare

When defending against a secondary weapon attack your range 3 bonus defense dice is still applied.

Wish I still had the pic but I thought it was a clever idea.

Forgot the cost which is 1pt

I get it with ordnance cause its not very good.

But do tlts and hlcs need to ignore range bonuses?

basically, as others have mentioned, it evolved that way. the first cannons (ion and hlc) used the same mechanic as missiles as they were secondary weapons in (almost)every other aspect, too.

from there on, to keep things simple, they functioned that way and were priced that way. to change the mechanics from now on would be inconsistent and confusing.

is definitely an option for a possible next edition, IMO.

-cannons could work just like primary weapons, turrets -maybe- too, maybe something else..

-missiles and torps just have to work different from how they do now, as low PS and a torp is no good idea (and thats a shame).

-bombs and mines have a working mechanic that could be kept, IMO.

but, we'll see.

Because thematically it makes sense for Missiles and Torps, the only secondary weapons available at launch. Missiles and Torps have guidance systems and are solid projectiles that won't diminish in power at range and won't be less accurate at range.

Sorry, but Missiles and Turrets were released in the same wave, which was Wave 1 (TIE Advanced and Y-Wing).

I would love to see Cannons and Turrets get defensive range combat bonuses without any offensive ranged combat bonuses. It really doesn't make sense to have the autoblaster have 3 attack written on the card and then only be available at range one where it would have a permanent +1 attack bonus...

Because thematically it makes sense for Missiles and Torps, the only secondary weapons available at launch. Missiles and Torps have guidance systems and are solid projectiles that won't diminish in power at range and won't be less accurate at range.

Sorry, but Missiles and Turrets were released in the same wave, which was Wave 1 (TIE Advanced and Y-Wing).

And maybe that's actually why it is the way it is. The only turret available during wave 1 was the Ion turret. Maybe they wanted to avoid the range 1 4 dice Ion attack. And since the ion turret is range 1-2, the lack of range 3 defense bonus was only impacting the missiles and torpedoes.

Because thematically it makes sense for Missiles and Torps, the only secondary weapons available at launch. Missiles and Torps have guidance systems and are solid projectiles that won't diminish in power at range and won't be less accurate at range.

Sorry, but Missiles and Turrets were released in the same wave, which was Wave 1 (TIE Advanced and Y-Wing).

And maybe that's actually why it is the way it is. The only turret available during wave 1 was the Ion turret. Maybe they wanted to avoid the range 1 4 dice Ion attack. And since the ion turret is range 1-2, the lack of range 3 defense bonus was only impacting the missiles and torpedoes.

That all seems to be making the bizarre assumption that they weren't planning on ever releasing anything ever again for the game. Also, that an Ion Turret attack with 4 dice is somehow overwhelmingly powerful... Anyway, the real reason the rules are as they are (the same for all Secondary Weapons) has already been mentioned in this thread: Simplicity.