How does customized munitions sound? As in. Different warhead on ordnance. Assault middle tips on guided toros. Etc. ???? Horrible probably. Edit. Kinda hard to explain what I mean.

Are you saying unique weapons? A one of a kind missile?

Mixing missiles and torpedos? To be honest, the next phase in this needs to be non-target lock ordnance. I get that we filmed the first part in the 70's, but don't you think that there is something like Friend or Foe technology in Star Wars? Something that hits the closest available target without having to lock on. After that, maybe we could get some custom guidance missile / torpedos... at least IMHO...

I've wondered about "customizable" ordnance as some kind of secondary weapon that can be used one of two ways before it is discarded.

People have thought it would make a game more interesting if you could change out ordnance, and perhaps other things, once you see what your opponent has brought. Another school thinks that starting with blind ordnance (your opponent doesn't know what you are officially packing) it a good idea. Having ordnance that could function as two different things should help satisfy both groups as you could pair something good against one squadron with something useful against a different type and because you have two options to choose from your opponent doesn't always know what you're going to use until you use it.

I've wondered about "customizable" ordnance as some kind of secondary weapon that can be used one of two ways before it is discarded.

People have thought it would make a game more interesting if you could change out ordnance, and perhaps other things, once you see what your opponent has brought. Another school thinks that starting with blind ordnance (your opponent doesn't know what you are officially packing) it a good idea. Having ordnance that could function as two different things should help satisfy both groups as you could pair something good against one squadron with something useful against a different type and because you have two options to choose from your opponent doesn't always know what you're going to use until you use it.

This is the big part of why ordnance is lagging. A lot of it is great given certain circumstances, but mediocre under most circumstances. Variable effect munitious would be a way to make sure that it would be always useful to take them, no matter what you run into.

For instance, if I could choose between the effects of either Assault Missiles or concussion missiles on hit, I'd be a lot more willing to take them on my lists. An A-Wing equipped with such a missile could be a threat to both Swarms and 2 ship lists.

That kind of missile would still need to be only 2 or 3 points. We're still talking about discarded 1 use weapons. Paying Mangler Cannon prices for that kind of upgrade seems like a bad idea.

I like Pundit's idea of being able to switch ordnance within the same point cost. Another way to make ordnance viable is to FAQ the cards so you don't have to spend TL.

Now here's your problem. If you boost ordnance over a certain threshold you're allowing an alphastrike build to remove 40-50 points off the table before the game even starts. Unlike other classes of weapons which can be slid up or down in effectiveness until you find the butterzone, ordnance is binary. It's either going to work great or not at all.

seriously i would think by then ALL weapons would be auto guided. i mean even the current AIM-120 has its OWN guidance system not requiring anything from the aircraft once its launched. the OLD Aim-7s REQUIRED inputs from the Aircraft's radar to stay locked on to the target. now something like the AIM-9 would be cool. (as was mentioned earlier) NO TL required BUT once launched it targets the nearest ship!! and torps should have MASSIVE warheads that do waaaay more damage.. just saying... same with mines/bombs!!!!

seriously i would think by then ALL weapons would be auto guided. i mean even the current AIM-120 has its OWN guidance system not requiring anything from the aircraft once its launched. the OLD Aim-7s REQUIRED inputs from the Aircraft's radar to stay locked on to the target. now something like the AIM-9 would be cool. (as was mentioned earlier) NO TL required BUT once launched it targets the nearest ship!! and torps should have MASSIVE warheads that do waaaay more damage.. just saying... same with mines/bombs!!!!

The excuse they used in the EU was that ECCM was so good and widespread it reduced combat to visual range only. Let's face it, no one wants to see a movie about two warheads racing each-other, Dr Strangelove notwithstanding.