EDIT: Because it really doesn't seem to be clear enough I'll putting here that this is not a balance thread. It's about impact on gameplay, not about power.

I've decided I really, really don't like Deadeye.

Ordnance by default has more depth to it than firing a primary weapon. Acquiring your lock in the first place is tactically interesting: it's not always easy to do and as Alex Davy said in a recent interview Guidance Chips was balanced around that. Ordnance provides an incredibly strong potentially ship-wiping attack but you can counterplay the setup for that attack.

You've got a lot of tools for helping to set up ordnance such as Thread Tracers and Long Range Scanners and they all have tactical setbacks: the thread tracer requires one ship to sacrifice a damaging shot to set up the rest of their squad, Long Range Scanners does some target telegraphing and gives you a hard time locking during a battle.

Ordnance pivoting around the target lock also has some counters buildwise: Expert Handling and Black One can shake off locks but at the cost of taking reposition actions, but as actions they can be counterplayed with stress, blocking and other more niche mechanics and cards. Captain Kagi is actually useful against ordnance as he draws the locks onto himself so to kill his friends with ordnance you have to either kill him first or manage range so you can't lock him. Against a target lock dependent weapon even Countermeasures has a use.

Deadeye takes that all and throws it out the window. Getting a lock on your intended target? Deadeye lets you shoot anyone. Managing range on the approach: gone: focus is effectively a target lock on everyone at any range as far as firing ordnance is concerned. Counters? All those options are replaced by Palob and Jax, and the Deadeye ship can just use the normal lock if they show up to the party. Interesting mechanics for assisting target locks like Tracers and LRS? Inferior to Deadeye. Deadeye effectively turns ordnance into a cannon with limited shots. All the interesting design and maneuver decisions the target lock mechanic creates are cast aside.

Take TorpScouts. Without Deadeye they've got to get into range to acquire that lock then stay out of Range 1 to fire their torpedo, making that initial engagement much more mentally engaging. Fly straight at the enemy doesn't work if the enemy's fast and if they're clever: you've got to approach cleverly to get the massive payoff that a successful ordnance shot provides. Try playing a TorpScout list without Deadeye and then tell me there isn't more to just about any matchup without it. Even a mirror match gets much more interesting.

Without Deadeye, using ordnance interacts with a myriad of cards, mechanics and maneuvers and is something you can get a lot more out of with skill. Deadeye strips out ordnance's unique play, turning it into a primary weapon that burns out after two shots and nothing more.

Based on that I'm not sure removing Deadeye from the game outright would be a bad thing: I feel like ordnance is a stronger design (as in better gameplay rather than more powerful) in its absence. Can anyone sell me on the design merits of Deadeye again or could there be a case for Deadeye being on X-Wing's ban list were it ever to get one?

Short Version: Ordnance is simply more fun without Deadeye: there's a lot more maneuvering skill involved in using it and more possibilities when it comes to countering it and counterplaying the counters.

For years people wanted ordnance to become a thing. Until recently it was considered wasted points if you took proton torp. Instead hlc or a phantom was the best way to get 4 dice + on an attack. Without having to spend pts on a one time use that may not hit, leaving you with nothing to modify. Unless homing missiles but they were even more costly

Now that ordnance is being used more people are asking for nerfs lol

Forgive me as I do find this funny. Seriously. Deadeye isn't that bad. It takes your elite slot, and against high agility ships still hard to get them in arc, let alone do any dmg. The triple uboats abused the dead eye, and I hate the build. I don't blame dead eye, I blame the ship itself.

Dead eye helps the lower PS generics with an elite get to use ordnance. Why must we take that away?

At least dead eye gives those ships a chance (I'm not talking uboats) before it would go as, ship X moves, and is at range 4 of ship Y which is carrying ordnance. Out of range no target lock. Next ship X speeds up and is in range 1, or is in range 3, but ship Y already moved, so next round sure you get your target lock, but now he's in range 1.

At least with dead eye it makes it so those 4-5 points are not completely wasted.

Not going to happen, u-boats are not auto win.

Don't mistake this for a balance thread: I couldn't really care less about TorpScout effectiveness. Kill it off and something will take its place.

What I care about is how Deadeye removes a lot of the maneuvering, decision making and tactics from ordnance: it practically turns it into a primary weapon.

Dead eye helps the lower PS generics with an elite get to use ordnance. Why must we take that away?

Because Deadeye achieves that by turning ordnance into a cannon: it deals with the challenge of acquiring a target lock on a higher PS ship by removing that facet entirely rather than playing into it like LRS does.

At least dead eye gives those ships a chance (I'm not talking uboats) before it would go as, ship x moves, and is at range 4 of ship y which is carrying ordnance. Out of range no target lock. Next ship x speeds up and is in range 1, or is in range 3, but you already moved, so be t round sure you get your target lock, but now he's in range 1.

Precisely: you can't just charge in and expect not to be counterplayed. You've got to fly around this or bring the tools to deal with it if it happens.

Deadeye is a one point Elite Talent.

Moreover, it's a one point Elite Talent which can only (ever) be used in conjunction with ordnance.

Moreover, it's a one point talent that requires (and spends) a Focus token to use.

Moreover, because it's tied to the use of ordnance, it's a one point Elite Talent which is unlike to see more than two uses from the ship it's on, per game.

I don't really think there's much wrong with it, to be honest.

I don't really think there's much wrong with it, to be honest.

It removes the target locking element from ordnance entirely, sidesteps every mechanic designed to interact with target locking and thus reduces ordnance, otherwise one of the more tactically complex weapon choices, to a limited shot cannon upgrade.

I don't think it's unbalanced relative to the game as a whole, I think it removes part of the game that's better off not being removed. When Deadeye isn't used there's a lot more to both using ordnance and fighting it.

Deadeye is a well conceived card that should definitely stay in the game; However, I can imagine a few good arguments for updating it to be small ship only.

Once again: triple scouts is not the problem, palp aces is.

Deadeye is a well conceived card that should definitely stay in the game

See, this is the point I disagree on: I don't think it's a well conceived card. It's like the PWT of ordnance: it strips out facet of the game.

Wave 2 seemed to be a big wave for ignoring the mechanics they made in Wave 1: the TIE interceptor could reactively double-reposition after seeing where the opponent went (although I doubt it was designed with PTL glue in mind), the Falcon could shoot anything that could shoot it and Deadeye made ordnance behave like a primary.

Once again: triple scouts is not the problem, palp aces is.

And once again this is not a balance thread. I feel like I need to say that at the start.

Although I will point out that PalpAces was at Wave 7 Worlds and didn't make the final. Wave 8 much like Wave 4 is a perfect storm with no single culprit for its stale meta: together the dominant archetypes kill off everything else by covering each other's backs.

Unique maybe. Remove no.

Deadeye is a well conceived card that should definitely stay in the game; However, I can imagine a few good arguments for updating it to be small ship only.

Or, possibly better, made unique.

Unique maybe. Remove no.

Why? Unique would be a nerf to it but it'd still sidestep the ordnance mechanics which is my issue with it. I could maybe see Unique Discard but then Tomax could still use it infinitely.

Deadeye makes a torpedo boat into just another jouster, stripping off the strategy the challenge of acquiring the target lock at the right place and time otherwise provides. If you limit it it can still do that.

No.

This edition of our on-going series of Short Answers to (really!) Long Questions is brought to you thanks, in part, to a grant from the Incom Corporation.

If it's not a balance thread, then really I don't see what are you trying to achieve here. OK, I get it, you don't like Deadeye, you are entitled to have an opinion, and you are free to share it with us. But removing a card from the game, just because you don't like it? Nonsense.

Deadeye is a one point Elite Talent.

Moreover, it's a one point Elite Talent which can only (ever) be used in conjunction with ordnance.

Moreover, it's a one point talent that requires (and spends) a Focus token to use.

Moreover, because it's tied to the use of ordnance, it's a one point Elite Talent which is unlike to see more than two uses from the ship it's on, per game.

I don't really think there's much wrong with it, to be honest.

Say moreover once more I dare ya.

What a world we live in. Seeing Deadeye go from useless to multiple calls for its banning. What a world.

I personal don't like how PtL and EI side steps the rules for only getting one action per turn.

Maybe they should be gone to?

Come to think of it, I also don't like that Intel Agent lets you cheat and look at an opponents Dial, sidestepping the core element of out flying your opponent.

Stay on Target letting you just pick what move you want is also a bit off.

Oh and all Regen.

Wingman/Yorr removing stress should not be a thing either.

So to summarize all thinks that are not core set X-Wings or TIE Fighters should be removed from the game as I don't want to see any growth or deviation from the Core Elements that the game I love was founded on.

Deadeye worth removing from the game?

HELL NO!

Why should a card that has languished out of sight for years suddenly need to be removed or otherwise nerfed just because it has FINALLY found someplace it can be useful? I take it someone wasn't around back when we were actually thinking Deadeye could be FREE for ships because using ordnance sucked so badly it wouldn't really make a difference.

Difference between a cannon and ord +deadeye is you can still use a cannon while stressed, you can't use ords if you can't focus. Cannons are also going to be mostly cheaper than any ords+deadeye and you still have your ept. Another downfall with deadeye is you have to focus every turn to make it useful. With a tl you can use your actions to get in a better position. you use a target lock Instead of deadeye you have done nothing for your ods aside from waste deadeye for that shot

I much prefer crack shot on my missile ships.

If dead eye is what is killing you then perhaps only relying on high PS ships to avoid being target locked is not the best way to play?

Deadeye is still a weak card it helps certain ships but they would do fine with something else in that ept slot. You are having an issue with ordnance and thinking it's a deadeye issue.

Ask your friend to try his uber deadeye list with crackshot instead and you will realize deadeye is fine.

I don't know actually why no one was playing Deadeye before U boats.

If it's not a balance thread, then really I don't see what are you trying to achieve here. OK, I get it, you don't like Deadeye, you are entitled to have an opinion, and you are free to share it with us. But removing a card from the game, just because you don't like it? Nonsense.

I'm making an argument for why I feel ordnance would be better (and I mean better as in better gameplay rather than more powerful) without Deadeye. I thought that was fairly obvious.

If dead eye is what is killing you then perhaps only relying on high PS ships to avoid being target locked is not the best way to play?

Where did I say I was being killed by Deadeye? How many times must I reiterate that my issue with it is not a balance one? I'm of the opinion that it removes depth from ordnance gameplay and therefore is detrimental rather than enriching to gameplay.

Deadeye isn't an unbalanced card but it is a card that removes depth from ordnance.

Deadeye worth removing from the game?

HELL NO!

Why should a card that has languished out of sight for years suddenly need to be removed or otherwise nerfed just because it has FINALLY found someplace it can be useful? I take it someone wasn't around back when we were actually thinking Deadeye could be FREE for ships because using ordnance sucked so badly it wouldn't really make a difference.

I was there and I disagreed with all the ordnance fixes that were giving out free target locks.

PTL and Experimental Interface come at a stress cost, as does Stay On Target. Wingman and Yorr both have limits for their stress management capabilities. As for regen, that's actually in the Core Set. All of these add to the game.

Deadeye however I feel subtracts from it. As I explained at great length getting a firing solution for ordnance is not a simple matter. Deadeye takes that entire element of using ordnance and throws it out: it simplifies it to the level of primary weapons fire and adds nothing in its place.

There wasn't really a platform for it.

Dash Rendar also needs to be banned! #obstaclesmatter

On a serious note, what's this guy smoking?

This is an amazing knee jerk reaction to encountering something you don't like without wanting to change how you do business.

I also enjoy starting my games with your list doesn't work for me, here (hands opponent a new list) play this, it works out better for me.

Dash Rendar also needs to be banned! #obstaclesmatter

Whether or not Dash Rendar is bad design is an interesting question. He ignores obstacles but his wingmen and his opponents can't. He can play with that asymmetry so I could see an argument both ways.

This is an amazing knee jerk reaction to encountering something you don't like without wanting to change how you do business.

Explain? Not sure what I'm meant to have encountered here? Is this forum so used to people making excuses for hating something they can't beat that they don't know what to make of a discussion about a card's design in the absence of balance discussion?

This isn't a knee-jerk reaction to anything, it's been turning over in my head since I wrote a post on faction identity in support ships and stumbled across Captain Kagi again. There are a lot of cards that play with the acquiring a target lock element of ordnance use across several waves. Ordnance could have had a lot of depth to it were it not for another forgotten underused card that removes the target locking gameplay entirely.

The only knee-jerk I see is the response to the suggestion of banning it: everyone's automatically assumed that I got burned by a Jumpmaster and am pulling a ParaGoomba. In retrospect I probably should have predicted that and framed this thread differently.

I'm happy to have a serious and interesting discussion with anyone who disagrees that Deadeye is bad for ordnance gameplay but I've yet to see anyone actually make a case defending it: all I'm getting is aggression based off assumptions of ill intent.

Unique maybe. Remove no.

+1 to this...

...and not because of any particular build, but (for me) simply because the the card-art shows the moment Luke was using The Force rather than a Targeting computer to make 'that shot'...

...so, I feel like it should be a unique talent, that very few can accomplish (whether due to Force-ability or innate 'mundane' skill at that feat).