I would like to point out that your arguments that repositioning, regen, anD PtL have all been in the game since wave 1 or 2 are not valid.

Regen on a T-65 or Y-Wing? Moderately powerful, but not invincible.

If a PtL Saber Squadron boosts and barrel rolls, it now has unmodified dice with TIE Fighter Health. If Soontir did that same thing, he now is as strong defensively as a TIE Fighter with focus. He doesn't get Palpatine and Autothrusters or even a second mod slot. There are actual costs and limitations to arc dodging.

If a PS 9 TIE Fighter rolls up in front of me and then dodges my arc with a BR, then that's fine. Wave 2 Soontir or Luke with R2-D2 is clearly not on the level of modern regen or Palp Aces crap, it's not what we're complaining about.

I'm even okay with turrets sometimes. 2 dice turrets or Patrol Leader Decimators or a WSF with an HLC or Mangler and the Outrider title slapped on it I'm okay with. It's when these mechanics get pushed to the extreme that it's the problem.

And you could argue that U-Boats and Deadeye push ordnance to an extreme. I agree with that, but they HAVE to be at this level in order to stand a chance against Palp Aces.

So why do only Scum get a Deadeye ordnance ship? Why don't, say, the K-Wing and TIE Punisher also get PS3-4 generics that can use the Elite slot? Keep in mind that those two ships are very close in cost and stats to the larger base JumpMaster?

Imperials have Gamma Squadron Veterans now btw.

K-Wing doesn't get EPT's because all it would do is give Miranda Predator and no one would use ordnance on them anyways.

Punisher doesn't get one for stupid thematic reasons. Some of the ships in the game don'e have EPT's because they're big dumb barges and it wouldn't matter how skilled a pilot is, they're not going to be any better at using them than anyone else. You put a race car driver into a school bus and he isn't going to be able to anything with it that a school bus driver can't. A stunt plane pilot isn't going to be able to do a loop in an airliner.

This reasoning was applied to the Lambda, Y-Wing, Punisher, K-Wing, and the Ghost. It should have also been applied to the Decimator IMO. Y-Wings and Punishers should have been exempted from this for balance reasons though, if Black Eight or even Cutlass Squadron had EPT's and maybe a bump of 1 PS they'd be great.

Punisher and K-wing don't get EPTs because there's quite literally no space on the upgrade bar.

The interesting thing about Nera with Deadeye: She's a Unique. What if Deadeye was only equippable on Unique Pilots?

That is an interesting thought.

Punisher and K-wing don't get EPTs because there's quite literally no space on the upgrade bar.

That's one of the stupidest reasons they could have. Title: K-Wing Only. Cannot be equipped on PS2 or lower. Add Elite upgrade slot. I'd also accept trading the Missile for it. If they didn't want Miranda to have them, they could have let it off of her as well. Bleh.

What's so wrong about something that can make ordnance easier to use? I mean when you start looking at secondary weapons you look at cannons and possibly turrents and it's only recent that torps or missiles have even entered the conversation. Perhaps some cannon are relatively expensive compared to disposables but there's also those "little" advantages that they are all reusable turn after turn and generally don't require anything special to use them. A HLC is easily worth two proton torpedoes. If you want head scratching just compare the Ion Cannon to the Ion Pulse missile; the missile give two tokens instead of one which only matters on bigger ships but it also requires telegraphing the attack (TL requirement) at a longer minimum range while telegraphing the attack while the cannon just keeps on going.

Gamma Veterans (from Imperial Veterans) can use Deadeye, and we've had several threads over the past few weeks about TIE Bombers. Clearly some people want them to work. I'm one of them, I've been flying 2xTIE Bombers + (something) for a while now and planning to pick up two more TIE Bombers to run a full list of them.

If you considered Deadeye to say "Spend a focus to acquire a target lock" would that make it better? It does the same thing, just a different way of thinking about it so a lock still exists at some point.

The main point mechanically is to patch up a weird timing interaction where lower PS ships miss their chance to use ordnance at all because they move up, can't lock because the target is out of range, then the target moves up to shoot them and they have no ability to fire missiles/torpedoes back because they don't have a lock. Thematically, this does not feel right.

You don't have to like it... Many do and I personally don't use it to often, but I still think it has it's place..

Wait, is this a balance thread?

Deadeye is fine. Sometimes you switch off your targeting computer and fire on instinct. It effectively captures the spirit of dogfighting in Star Wars.

Deadeye seems to be based on the Xwing video games where you could get lucky with torps or missiles and point blank fire them into not so agile ships.

I think they could have implemented it better and limited it to R1 or something...

Deadeye seems to be based on the Xwing video games where you could get lucky with torps or missiles and point blank fire them into not so agile ships.

I think they could have implemented it better and limited it to R1 or something...

There are extremely few Torps and Missiles that can be used at Range One. And Prockets basically have Deadeye+ built in. Actually, by my count, only Adv. Proton Torps and Cluster Missiles could make use of it.

Let's say you remove Deadeye and get all that ordnance gameplay depth you are talking about in the OP, aka ordnance is a lot harder to use.

That IMO leads to the question: why use it in the first place? Apart from some corner cases like prockets or running a lone Plasma torp on Dengar what exactly would make going through all that Target Lock hassle instead of running a HLC, or just the primary and saving points?

Let's say you remove Deadeye and get all that ordnance gameplay depth you are talking about in the OP, aka ordnance is a lot harder to use.

That IMO leads to the question: why use it in the first place? Apart from some corner cases like prockets or running a lone Plasma torp on Dengar what exactly would make going through all that Target Lock hassle instead of running a HLC, or just the primary and saving points?

IF you can run a HLC obviously you would run it over ordnance. How many ships have both Cannon and Ordnance slots?

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

Cannons tend to be more expensive than ordnance actually. Focusing every turn is something most ships do anyway. As for the point on target locking, you can't target lock before the first round you're in range without LRS and if you're not shooting then you're sorta defeating the point of taking Deadeye in the first place.

Errrrr you're wrong about cost the ONLY cannon more expensive then most ordnance is HLC at 7 pts, the 2nd is autoblaster at 5 pts, and mangler cannon at 4 pts. Meanwhile proton + deadeye is 5 pts, plasma +deadeye is 4 pts, homing +deadeye is 6 pts, and assault missiles + deadeye are 6 pts. I'd say those are the top ords used with deadeye and they are all more expensive or equally expensive than mangler cannon, if you include extra munitions that's another 2 points for a 2nd shot bringing proton to 7 equal to the HLC, plasma is 6 beaten in price only to the HLC, and homing at 8 which is more expensive then the most expensive cannon. EM helps out for a 2nd shot but the cannon can still shoot more times than any missile/torp and still not need a TL or focus to work.

As for focus being what most ships do anyway that's also not entirely accurate. OL is gonna TL on a ship, most PTL ships will grab focus yes but only after doing their other action first which is TL, evade, boost, or B-roll.

Target locking is a one and done and isn't wasted if you don't fire that turn so you can now spend your actions to either further modify your attack on a later turn, or use mobility to be able to fire and have your TL ready to use. You can't do that with deadeye. There are other ways to get a TL aside from LRS (limited to imperial players afaik) from the start.

You are right about if you're not shooting you defeat the point of deadeye but deadeye is equally useless if you can't keep your target in your arc. With a TL on the target you have a much easier time doing so by using your action for better things. Deadeye trades away being mobile to keep a target in your arc (or able to k-turn for most ships) for always being able to shoot at a target if you have a target in your arc.

Let's say you remove Deadeye and get all that ordnance gameplay depth you are talking about in the OP, aka ordnance is a lot harder to use.

That IMO leads to the question: why use it in the first place? Apart from some corner cases like prockets or running a lone Plasma torp on Dengar what exactly would make going through all that Target Lock hassle instead of running a HLC, or just the primary and saving points?

IF you can run a HLC obviously you would run it over ordnance. How many ships have both Cannon and Ordnance slots?

Firespray, tie defenders, Y-wings if turrets count (not for HLC obviously), YV-666, B-wings, K-wings (once again if turrets count), YT-2400 and the VCX (but just like the y and k-wing only if turrets count)

I'll admit I'm surprised there is this many but a few of those ships don't want to use their ordnance slots because they have cannon slots.

Ignore.

Deadeye seems to be based on the Xwing video games where you could get lucky with torps or missiles and point blank fire them into not so agile ships.

I think they could have implemented it better and limited it to R1 or something...

Errr?...

...all you have to do is look at the card-art to see where the inspiration comes from.

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.

Actually, as someone who is not invested in this conversation at all, I can definitely tell you that there have been multiple good examples of people making a case defending not removing Deadeye from the game; you simply don't like their responses as they do not agree with your position, so you completely ignore their responses.

Given that, I truly doubt you are open minded at all about having a discussion with anyone who disagrees with your position.

I think you have made some good points, and some bad. But I really don't even want to attempt a discussion with you, as I don't feel you will give any contrary opinion I make any weight at all; your mind is made up.

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.

Without dead eye it would just make ordnance worse. Nobody ever complain or gave it any consideration up until this wave. Maybe some toyed with it last wave, but until now you barely ever saw dead eye.

Yes it does take away some of the maneuvering aspect away from having to get into range and grab your target lock, but without it makes it almost near impossible against a good player to get a target lock on a higher PS ship. Kind of making low PS ordnance carriers useless.

It makes having ordnance not become a possible waste of pts. If you want to fly something low PS that can pack a punch, then instead of flying cheap bombers with ordnance, you end up with expensive ships taking hlc, or something else that is more reliable.

There is nothing worse than having 4-7 pts on a ship and have it basically become useless, because let's face it, if you want to fly cheap bombers, or something similar, your probably not going to get to shoot off those missiles. Your opponent will move after you, so he'll just wait till your outside of range then boost into your range, and now you have no target lock, then next round he's range 1.

I think dead eye is just fine. It's a good mechanic to allow something in the game to be a little more useful. Also let's not forget you still have to get them in arc. If your flying bombers that's still not easy. They get out flown pretty easily

It doesn't make it a Canon. Your paying a high price for a one time shot. Hit or miss that's all you get. Unless you pay more for extra munitions. Without dead eye, why bother? When there are options like hlc that doesn't require to spend a target lock to use, and can use it all day.

If you want to talk about mechanics, then maybe look more at the ordnance mechanics. Should you be able to avoid a missiles that's locked onto you? Shouldnt it be harder to avoid than say someone just shooting at you?

People are giving up their EPT slot (i.e Crackshot, Predator, PTL, VI, etc) so they can fire a couple ordnance. It's a good trade off. Argument can be made for making it unique (thematically how many deadeye pilots can there be in a squad, and if they are so good why is their PS so **** low?). Or maybe make it a discard EPT so you can get shots in opening round, but need to TL your second attack. I dont think it needs to be banned though.

What I care about is how Deadeye removes a lot of the maneuvering, decision making and tactics

So do PWT. So what? It's the nature of the game for certain upgrades and ability to drastically alter or outright ignore entire mechanics of the game.

I think I understand what OP is saying. Flavour-wise it's a bit off.

Also it throws expectations when building lists as Deadeye happens to be immune to things like Countermeasures and Black One which are meant to be anti-ordanence.

Long Range Sensors would have been the ideal fix that Deadeye was originally intended for.

I see a possibility of it being a unique because Luke blew up the Deathstar, but in either case I think u need to wait for X-wing 2.0 to remove bandaids currently existing in the game, no matter how weirdly they are warping the meta currently.

People are giving up their EPT slot (i.e Crackshot, Predator, PTL, VI, etc) so they can fire a couple ordnance. It's a good trade off. Argument can be made for making it unique (thematically how many deadeye pilots can there be in a squad, and if they are so good why is their PS so **** low?). Or maybe make it a discard EPT so you can get shots in opening round, but need to TL your second attack. I dont think it needs to be banned though.

How many crackshots have there been? How many pilots have the Predatory instinct, how many can Push the limits of their abilities?

PS3 is not low, because PS4 is a goddamn RED SQUADRON and Vaders own Blacks. we're just too fed up with over-the-roof PSes.

The only way it should all be implemented is if FFG ever starts using different dice, making it not a problem to take LRS. but yet again, a ship that has one use missile\torp only is a really really sad thing. because in most cases a ship that's supposed to be ordnance based has 2 primary and that's impossibly little nowadays, when focus+evade is so abundant.

If deadeye was broken people would have complained about it back in wave 2 when it first came out or even wave 7 when all the new missiles and torpedoes and related upgrades were supposed to make things better.

Deadeye is fine, It was the deadeye R4 agro combo that was powerful and FFG already removed that. (along with another hammer blow on a dead horse called blaster turret)

I always found Deadeye to be damageable to the game since it basically removes one interesting aspect of the game (same as repositionning high PS aces that somewhat negate the importance of the dial). The problem with ordnance is not the TL, but the amount of damage that was too low.
But in the other hand Deadeye makes for a good EpT for a single specialist (and fluff-wise is really good with that "Luke not using his targeting computer" thing).
So I vote for making it Unique.

If deadeye was broken people would have complained about it back in wave 2 when it first came out or even wave 7 when all the new missiles and torpedoes and related upgrades were supposed to make things better.

Deadeye is fine, It was the deadeye R4 agro combo that was powerful and FFG already removed that. (along with another hammer blow on a dead horse called blaster turret)

Can you read?

The thread is not about balance . The point is discussing how deadeye supresses an interesting point of gameplay (in the current meta, obviously, not back in wave 2 when low PS generics didn't have access to it).

Let's say you remove Deadeye and get all that ordnance gameplay depth you are talking about in the OP, aka ordnance is a lot harder to use.

That IMO leads to the question: why use it in the first place? Apart from some corner cases like prockets or running a lone Plasma torp on Dengar what exactly would make going through all that Target Lock hassle instead of running a HLC, or just the primary and saving points?

IF you can run a HLC obviously you would run it over ordnance. How many ships have both Cannon and Ordnance slots?

It doesn't have to be the same ship,just roghly equal price,so you can replace it in your list.

My question still stands,given that, barring Homing Missiles, ordnance shots aren't that much better than cannon or primary weapon shots*, why go through the hassle to use ordnance?

*without PtL or other similar shenanigans you spend your TL to fire so your shot will be unmodified. A proton torp averages 2.25 damage without chips, 2.75 with. A 3 dice primary with TL averages 2.25 dmg (equal to a proton wuth LRS) and a HLC shot with TL averages 3 damage.