I have a student who routinely reminds me that "missiles would be useless in space." I think his concept is that missiles rely on the shockwave from a nearby explosion to do damage, while torpedoes make contact with something (ideally the target) and detonate, delivering damage directly.

Oh well, there goes my theory.

So missiles against light targets... nah, RotJ disproves it.

Edit

@up Some (most?) AA missiles throw shrapnel at the target, anti-ship missiles smash into targets before detonating.

I believe Star Wars torpedoes are preprogrammed but unguided (based on canon material alone), we never see them fired at agile targets and against even slowly moving targets they are fired from a very short range.

TCW is "canon material" and has Tracking Torpedoes which are guided, and capable of following and hitting even a dodging stealth ship:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Tracking_torpedo

If we're applying hindsight, then what SHOULD have happened was that the damage ordnance does should have been independent of their roll to hit.

Then, Missiles should have had more dice to hit, but deal less damage(faster, harder to avoid, but less powerful) and Torpedoes have fewer dice to hit but deal more damage(more powerful, but slower and easier to avoid).

This! ^

If we're applying hindsight, then what SHOULD have happened was that the damage ordnance does should have been independent of their roll to hit.

Then, Missiles should have had more dice to hit, but deal less damage(faster, harder to avoid, but less powerful) and Torpedoes have fewer dice to hit but deal more damage(more powerful, but slower and easier to avoid).

This! ^

Yeah, that would have been neat design.

COuld have been as simple as 'Torpedoes deal double damage, missiles that don't just deal 1 damage have double the dice but deal half (rounded down) after hitting'.

Indeed, you could playtest just that right now (without Guidance Chimps and Scouts, possibly) for an interesting experiment.

Yeah missile is just a delivery system. An ICBM is different to a sidewinder, both are missiles. A nuke would work in space, for example. While a shock-wave of any appreciatable magnitude couldn't happen in space, you could conceivably have a concussive effect from expanding gases (somewhat unsure if this could practically hurt a spaceship but probably a person) plus the heat and shrapnel from the explosion itself.

In terms of terminology, torpedoes differentiate from missiles on earth by going through water. Since space ships use naval terminology, presumably this means they go through space. But so do missiles. They're both self propelled.

COuld have been as simple as 'Torpedoes deal double damage, missiles that don't just deal 1 damage have double the dice but deal half (rounded down) after hitting'.

Indeed, you could playtest just that right now (without Guidance Chimps and Scouts, possibly) for an interesting experiment.

I mean, even without guidance chips, torpedoes have way more hit dice than they should. Anything with more than 1 Agi should be able to easily evade a torpedo.

Given the lack or aerial and aquatic environments in space, mostly the difference is in the icon upgrade on your ship.

In terms of X-wing flavor, the Imps tend to get more missiles while the Rebs get more torps.

It uses the aquatic metaphor. Torpedos are meant to be used against capital ships. While missiles are more of a multi-purpose thing with fighter to fighter combat mostly in mind.

Tell that to the Exocet missile.

As I understand it, missiles burn fuel to travel through the air, and torpedoes travel through the water through propellers and such, though I'm not sure on that last part.

When it comes to space, you could justify it as propellant-based travel for missiles vs something else, maybe ion or some sort of sci-fi means of pushing against quantum particles for torpedoes.

Then you can get all snobby about torpedoes and call missiles uncivilised.

Nah, there are rocket powered torpedoes (example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval ).

I believe Star Wars torpedoes are preprogrammed but unguided (based on canon material alone), we never see them fired at agile targets and against even slowly moving targets they are fired from a very short range.

In the Rogue Squadron book, Corran uses proton torps all the time against TIEs and Interceptors.

In Star Wars... Missiles deliver the payload and Torpedoes ARE the payload.

As I understand it, missiles burn fuel to travel through the air, and torpedoes travel through the water through propellers and such, though I'm not sure on that last part.

When it comes to space, you could justify it as propellant-based travel for missiles vs something else, maybe ion or some sort of sci-fi means of pushing against quantum particles for torpedoes.

Then you can get all snobby about torpedoes and call missiles uncivilised.

Nah, there are rocket powered torpedoes (example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval ).

I believe Star Wars torpedoes are preprogrammed but unguided (based on canon material alone), we never see them fired at agile targets and against even slowly moving targets they are fired from a very short range.

In the Rogue Squadron book, Corran uses proton torps all the time against TIEs and Interceptors.

But that's not "canon material"

The difference in this game is missiles are good and torpedoes SUCK so bad they are most useful used as a slot to get extra missiles.

TORPEDO:

MISSILE:

I have a student who routinely reminds me that "missiles would be useless in space." I think his concept is that missiles rely on the shockwave from a nearby explosion to do damage, while torpedoes make contact with something (ideally the target) and detonate, delivering damage directly.

So would a nuke by that metric, as the nuke's damage is largely via the shockwave coupled through the atmosphere.

Early torpedoes detonated on direct impact. Modern torpedoes explode underneath the keel of the ship, breaking the ship's back by first pushing the center of the ship upwards, and then sucking it back down into the resulting cavity from the explosion. The ship breaks under its own weight without the torpedo ever directly contacting it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oUNt47G-08

Both torpedoes and missiles "in real life" have guidance systems, with the exception of the above mentioned super cavitating torpedoes that, by definition, can't use SONAR for guidance.

Of course, this being Star Wars, realism takes a back seat. Seismic charges clearly have sounds AND a shockwave:

... although they do seem to explode in a similar way to a real torpedo underwater.

The only GREAT part of a hor-a-bels-flick-a-rough!

Couldah-Shouldah been Han & Boba... but it is still awesome sauce and accidentally Real STAR WARS in the midst of a mud-pie.

COuld have been as simple as 'Torpedoes deal double damage, missiles that don't just deal 1 damage have double the dice but deal half (rounded down) after hitting'.

Indeed, you could playtest just that right now (without Guidance Chimps and Scouts, possibly) for an interesting experiment.

I doubt it would work out with the ones we have in the game now.

I mean, even without guidance chips, torpedoes have way more hit dice than they should. Anything with more than 1 Agi should be able to easily evade a torpedo.

I think the intent was clearly there, but the execution was lacking. Look at the original ordnance:

Proton Torpedoes: force you to spend target lock. Your first eyeball turns into critical damage and you can modify the rest with a focus token, but you can't do anything for your blanks so you get fewer hit results overall.

Concussion Missile: also force you to spend a target lock. You can turn one blank into a hit, and can also spend a focus token to convert eyeballs. So you're getting more hit results overall, but a lower chance of crits.

In theory, proton torpedoes would deal more devastating effects to low-agility targets. In practice, it just didn't work. Even now, Guidance Chips probably should have limited the free crit effect to Torpedoes while keeping the 3 attack limitation.

Torpedoes are meant to be fired at capital ships, and missiles have the word "miss" in their name, so they always do.

There's two types of homing missiles, but no homing Torpedos. Think of that what you will.

Of course, this being Star Wars, realism takes a back seat. Seismic charges clearly have sounds AND a shockwave:

... although they do seem to explode in a similar way to a real torpedo underwater.

That is the best **** noise.

Mostly because of the Rogue Squadron games though.

I have a student who routinely reminds me that "missiles would be useless in space." I think his concept is that missiles rely on the shockwave from a nearby explosion to do damage, while torpedoes make contact with something (ideally the target) and detonate, delivering damage directly.

concussion missiles because a concussion is a shock wave through air which there is none. But missiles would work in space as a missile is just a self propelled rocket with some sort of guidance. Torpedo in terms of military sense is a self propelled naval munitions named after an electrical fish. Both move under their own power.

Just curious.

To a degree, many of them work like their real world counterparts. A missile is designed for direct impact. A torpedo is not. It is designed to cause the environment to deal most of the damage. IE a missile is ground to air, air to air, or air to ground, impacts the target, and explodes. A torpedo, in the real world, doesn't work this way. It bounces off of a ship and then detonates, creating a void in the water. This void is then closed by the immense water presser around it, creating a crushing force several thousand times greater than the explosives could yield.

Some of the weapons in this game and in the Star Wars universe follow similar ideas. Most missiles deal direct damage to a target. In game terms, torpedoes do as well, but they can be described differently. A Proton Torpedo creates a small nuclear explosion that the ship must fly through. A Flechette Torpedo does something similar, but with shrapnel. A Plasma Torpedo creates a cloud of superheated plasma. An Ion Torpedo creates an electromagnetic cloud.

In game terms, the difference exists solely to deny certain ships certain weapons. But in general, that's a basic overview of how they work in the real world and in universe, and how you can quantify the difference on the table in a meaningful way.

If we're applying hindsight, then what SHOULD have happened was that the damage ordnance does should have been independent of their roll to hit.

Then, Missiles should have had more dice to hit, but deal less damage(faster, harder to avoid, but less powerful) and Torpedoes have fewer dice to hit but deal more damage(more powerful, but slower and easier to avoid).

This! ^

Agreed, but I'd also say ALL weapons should work like this. There's no reason to tie the probability to hit with damage potential.

Just curious.

To a degree, many of them work like their real world counterparts. A missile is designed for direct impact. A torpedo is not. It is designed to cause the environment to deal most of the damage. IE a missile is ground to air, air to air, or air to ground, impacts the target, and explodes. A torpedo, in the real world, doesn't work this way. It bounces off of a ship and then detonates, creating a void in the water. This void is then closed by the immense water presser around it, creating a crushing force several thousand times greater than the explosives could yield.

Some of the weapons in this game and in the Star Wars universe follow similar ideas. Most missiles deal direct damage to a target. In game terms, torpedoes do as well, but they can be described differently. A Proton Torpedo creates a small nuclear explosion that the ship must fly through. A Flechette Torpedo does something similar, but with shrapnel. A Plasma Torpedo creates a cloud of superheated plasma. An Ion Torpedo creates an electromagnetic cloud.

In game terms, the difference exists solely to deny certain ships certain weapons. But in general, that's a basic overview of how they work in the real world and in universe, and how you can quantify the difference on the table in a meaningful way.

Thank you for that.

Agreed, but I'd also say ALL weapons should work like this. There's no reason to tie the probability to hit with damage potential.

The idea behind primary guns, turrets and cannons is that you are firing a salvo off attacks, some of which are hitting, and some of which aren't, and doing one point of damage for each hit. And the more guns you have, the more shots you are taking.

Unfortunately, this is more abstracted by FFG, rather than a direct 1 to 1 output.