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.

Inability to make R3 shots (exactly what ordnance is supposed to do)

against a target with higher PS is.

Ordnance had the following problems, each addressed making it useful in high-end gameplay

1. cost. addressed with extra munitions, making 4-point torp a 3-point torp(already nicer)

2. taking of TL on higher-ps enemy, because taking R3 TL means a 3-4 move (even without a boost) means he gets into R1 no problem. (addressed via Deadeye or LRS)

3. spending of modification for firing (addressed via Guidance chips or newer ordnance that doesn't spend tokens)

4. inability to choose target and utter uselessness against arcdodgers who can woop-woop out of your arc, when you took the TL (adressed via Deadeye)

so, take anything away and you leave ordnance a useless wreck.

Again, I did not say ordnance was OK.
I am all for the TL to get a shot, but having to spend it is, IMO, a great part of the problem as it lower the damage output.
And as you say, not getting a long range shot at a higher PS target is a problem. That's why as a "fix", I would have loved to see more of LRS on torpedo carriers.

Again, I did not say ordnance was OK.

I am all for the TL to get a shot, but having to spend it is, IMO, a great part of the problem as it lower the damage output.

And as you say, not getting a long range shot at a higher PS target is a problem. That's why as a "fix", I would have loved to see more of LRS on torpedo carriers.

Not getting a shot is .

requirement to take TL is what made it impossible to slam it on low-cost low-ps ships. and before now there was no low-skill EPT to take the torp.

now there is one and that's great. PS race got a punch, and that's good for the game!

Inability to make R3 shots (exactly what ordnance is supposed to do)

against a target with higher PS is.

Difficulty, not inability.

Other tools exist that give you other paths to target locks at the right time without just stripping that challenge of acquiring the lock out entirely. Deadeye may be good for balance by letting ordnance compete with the current power lists but I think it's bad for gameplay depth.

I don't really like Predator or Dengar either: I think they're dull cards that are just simple flat powerups to attacks: even Hull Upgrade has more to it. I really wish Outmaneuver had been the stronger of those two cards. But those two simply add nothing whereas Deadeye takes something away. Right now I think that you're right and we need it because without it ordnance would be simply unused but I hope FFG releases something later on that makes it a much less attractive choice.

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.

But usually such mechanics come with a limitation of their own. Cards that let you ignore stress for example either trade it for damage or only let you ignore stress in part, taking one element of your ship up to eleven at the expense of crippling another element.

Primary weapon turrets when balanced correctly need to avoid fire themselves as they're woefully undergunned against any ship that's not paying for a gimmick of its own. I did actually consider drawing a comparison to PWTs before but I wasn't sure it held up to scrutiny.

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.

While I can see the case that Deadeye's a necessary evil FFG can always release more options.

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).

Green Squadrons had access to it, btw. The card originally came with the A-Wing.

And I'd counter your argument that Deadeye suppresses an interesting point of gameplay. Without Deadeye, you wouldn't see any ordnance at all besides for prockets on Vader or the Inquisitor.

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).

Green Squadrons had access to it, btw. The card originally came with the A-Wing.

And I'd counter your argument that Deadeye suppresses an interesting point of gameplay. Without Deadeye, you wouldn't see any ordnance at all besides for prockets on Vader or the Inquisitor.

You're right about EpT generics, but one missile slot doesn't make it huge.

Your second argument shows you don't understand what the thread is about. No one said "supress deadeye and the ordnance is fine"; the point is that deadeye suppresses the whole point of ordnance by getting rid of its specific requirements.

The TL requirement was both fluff-wise good and interesting in terms of gameplay if the weapons had sufficient damage capacity to explain it .

The problem is not TL requirement, but missibles being less effective than a laser shot with any token modifier. Making some weapons difficult to fire is not a flaw in game design, as long as the damage output makes it worth the shot, and that's the real issue.

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).

Green Squadrons had access to it, btw. The card originally came with the A-Wing.

And I'd counter your argument that Deadeye suppresses an interesting point of gameplay. Without Deadeye, you wouldn't see any ordnance at all besides for prockets on Vader or the Inquisitor.

You're right about EpT generics, but one missile slot doesn't make it huge.

Your second argument shows you don't understand what the thread is about. No one said "supress deadeye and the ordnance is fine"; the point is that deadeye suppresses the whole point of ordnance by getting rid of its specific requirements.

The TL requirement was both fluff-wise good and interesting in terms of gameplay if the weapons had sufficient damage capacity to explain it .

The problem is not TL requirement, but missibles being less effective than a laser shot with any token modifier. Making some weapons difficult to fire is not a flaw in game design, as long as the damage output makes it worth the shot, and that's the real issue.

Without deadeye ordnance would be a top-ps toy.

enough with PS race.

the problem is the order in which you take it.

to take it at R3 at higher-PS target you get easily R-1 shot in the face.

As I said, that problem would be quite less proheminent with more access to LRS. High PS ship gets TL-ed from far away, it can then avoid the ordnance carrier, but you got yourself a nice big supress zone.

As I said, that problem would be quite less proheminent with more access to LRS. High PS ship gets TL-ed from far away, it can then avoid the ordnance carrier, but you got yourself a nice big supress zone.

Then you have no chips and your attack is not better than simple 3-dice modded.

you simply misunderstand the scale of failure ordnance is. it took 3 cards to make it worth your time and four to make it overpowered and forcing FFG to nerf the сrap out of R4 aggro

As I said, that problem would be quite less proheminent with more access to LRS. High PS ship gets TL-ed from far away, it can then avoid the ordnance carrier, but you got yourself a nice big supress zone.

Then you have no chips and your attack is not better than simple 3-dice modded.

you simply misunderstand the scale of failure ordnance is. it took 3 cards to make it worth your time and four to make it overpowered and forcing FFG to nerf the сrap out of R4 aggro

LRS is slightly more powerful than GC on the initial attack.

As I said, that problem would be quite less proheminent with more access to LRS. High PS ship gets TL-ed from far away, it can then avoid the ordnance carrier, but you got yourself a nice big supress zone.

Then you have no chips and your attack is not better than simple 3-dice modded.

you simply misunderstand the scale of failure ordnance is. it took 3 cards to make it worth your time and four to make it overpowered and forcing FFG to nerf the сrap out of R4 aggro

LRS is slightly more powerful than GC on the initial attack.

Blanks say "nope"

And probability says yes.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/224579-guidance-chips-versus-long-range-scanners-an-analysis/

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

In my hands they are.

And probability says yes.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/224579-guidance-chips-versus-long-range-scanners-an-analysis/

then we take PTorp or Plasma+droid and LRS jump out of the window.

then we roll no eyeballs and LRS (together with overR4 and Ptorp) jump out of window

then the target gets out of arc and we can't shoot another one

all of that goes away with just using a wave 2 1 point EPT.

perfection

btw

statistically we have

2 hit_crtits

1 blank

1 focus

I can't way where your statistics failed, but most likely it tried to modulate more eyeballs than normally, but did not modulate lack of eyeballs.

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.

Nothing wrong with it per se,

It is just a poorly designed&restrictive EPT, which was designed to help with a poorly designed implementation of ordnance - which has now seen a resurgence/perfect storm moment for one build only.

I do not agree with authors point of view.

For the need of this discussion, I would suggest that you split tournament wise play and home/casual, fluff heavy fun. In the first one you are focusing on the effectiveness and as such, we cannot step out of balance related discussion. Anything 'fluffwise' (same as rules) are not relevant for tournament play. On the other side, you are totally welcome to do your non-competitive games as much climate as possible. Use Fat Han build vs Vader in Tie Advanced and some bombers or Tie fighters on the other side. Try to balance this a bit, no problem, that's up to you.

But the tournament play does not have to be more challenging or climatic than it is. If any mechanism is being weak (for any reason) it will be simply not used at all (look at bombers that do not hit tables that often). As simple as that, tournament play is about winning, while casual for the fun of flying.

I don't think it really needs to be nerfed. As mentioned before, how many ships does this really impact? I think it's mostly an issue with generics that have an EPT. It's when you can spam a lot of ships with ordnance and Deadeye that it becomes a bit of an issue. How many of those are there? Contracted Scouts and Gamma Squad Vets. Anyone else out there? You still have to get someone in your front arc. Does anyone complain about Deadeye on any named pilot?

Look at Nera Dantels: she can take an EPT and she can carry 2 Torpedoes. She can fire 360. She can take Deadeye and 2 x Proton Torpedoes to fire in 360 with just a Focus. Does anyone complain about her being too powerful? Or complain about her at all? She even takes trying to get someone in freakin' arc! No one complains about her, even though she is pretty dang powerful.

Does anyone complain about Gray Squadron Y-wing with Proton Torps, R2-D6, and Deadeye? You know, that would be a good ship to blast a U-boat with. Heck, you don't even need Deadeye vs. U-boats as you have the higher PS.

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

Palp Aces were balanced with rebel regen before jumpmasters. Also the stress hogs kept them in check. Alex Davy even stated that U-Boats were the ones that wiped out rebels in an interview with 186th.

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.

I'm not sure you understand the idea of upgrades, Blue Five.

Push the Limit sidesteps the rule of "one action per turn", should we remove that from the game? Weapons Engineer sidesteps the rule of "one target lock per ship", should we remove that from the game? Engine Upgrade lets ships which normally can't boost, boost. Should we remove that from the game?

There's a HUGE number of upgrade cards and abilities out there which sidestep rules of the fame to give their owning player an advantage. That's what upgrades actually do.

I partly agree with OP that as a game mechanic Deadeye is not optimal. If nothing else but for the fact I would like to see more difference between torpedoes and missiles.

Torpedoes were fluffwise never a dogfight weapon, it was for firing at bigger ships and bases.

If ordnance could have been redone from scratch I would have liked to see missiles having the option to use TL _or_ focus while torpedoes would need a TL to represent it being harder to fire in a dogfight.

This would ofc require other balancing steps to make torpedoes worth it, perhaps increasing damage output and/or lowering cost.

Looking at where the game is now I would unfortunately have a hard time seeing how Deadeye could be removed without ordnance fading back into obscurity.

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

Palp Aces were balanced with rebel regen before jumpmasters. Also the stress hogs kept them in check. Alex Davy even stated that U-Boats were the ones that wiped out rebels in an interview with 186th.

Why is a situation worse than the other?

Nerf PTL Arc Dodgers and that should fix everything. Oh, they did.

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

Palp Aces were balanced with rebel regen before jumpmasters. Also the stress hogs kept them in check. Alex Davy even stated that U-Boats were the ones that wiped out rebels in an interview with 186th.

Before you had palp aces balanced with rebels and scum struggling. Now you have palp aces balanced with scum and rebels struggling.

Why is a situation worse than the other?

Because for the first time in the history of X-Wing, those players who were used to cruising with Fat Han, Biggs and Corran et al - are struggling?

I'm not sure you understand the idea of upgrades, Blue Five.

Push the Limit sidesteps the rule of "one action per turn", should we remove that from the game? Weapons Engineer sidesteps the rule of "one target lock per ship", should we remove that from the game? Engine Upgrade lets ships which normally can't boost, boost. Should we remove that from the game?

There's a HUGE number of upgrade cards and abilities out there which sidestep rules of the fame to give their owning player an advantage. That's what upgrades actually do.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I don't claim that there's anything inherently wrong with an upgrade card or pilot that lets you act outside of the usual rules: there isn't.

What Deadeye does is sidestep gameplay: it removes the target locking challenge and the maneuvering considerations associated with it and adds nothing in its place. Sidestepping gameplay is again not inherently bad: I'm sure you can think of an example of another upgrade that does so that I don't have any problem with. My argument is that the gameplay Deadeye removes from the game is not gameplay that should be removed: it takes something out of the game that it's stronger having.

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.

Thematically, Pilot Skill is how well someone flies, not necessarily how well they shoot. Actually, I've always felt that a Gunnery Skill stat was a missing piece of the game but they're not going to add it now. Also, anything to do with ordnance is already sort of a "discard after 1-2 uses" card because that's all the shots you have. LRS would actually be a much better card if you could discard it after the first use instead of having to hang onto it, so I'll vote for that

And as you say, not getting a long range shot at a higher PS target is a problem. That's why as a "fix", I would have loved to see more of LRS on torpedo carriers.

The problem is that LRS doesn't seem to be good enough. The first shot with it is fine, after that it's a pain. If there was a way to have LRS for the first shot and then have it get discarded it would be a better card. If it turned into Guidance Chips, even better So I've been running TIE Bombers for the past month or so, mostly with Guidance Chips. Last week I switched to LRS and replaced my Deadeye with Crack Shot. Running the numbers on a dice calculator showed substantially higher alpha strike damage so I was expecting it to be awesome. But in practice the telegraphing/lock-in of our first target plus the greatly enhanced difficulty of locking the second target made it fairly unpleasant. Now I fully admit that I'm probably not flying well with the change yet and need to adapt a bit but I expect it will still be awkward. I'm going to try it again this week with some different deployment and see if I can make it work but as of right now I'd rather just have the Chips and lower damage.

The TL requirement was both fluff-wise good and interesting in terms of gameplay if the weapons had sufficient damage capacity to explain it .

The problem is not TL requirement, but missibles being less effective than a laser shot with any token modifier. Making some weapons difficult to fire is not a flaw in game design, as long as the damage output makes it worth the shot, and that's the real issue.

Exactly. We're beating our heads against the wall trying to get missiles/torps to work. They're extra hassle so they're supposed to be worth it by putting out higher damage. Right now they just don't have the right balance on most ships. They work on Jumpmasters because you get an EPT on a cheap generic, white turnaround to fire the second shot faster/more easily, and high enough health w/shields to more reliably live to fire the second shot for a bargain price.

An errata to LRS that makes them discard after you use your target lock would be an interesting change that makes them more appealing and I think worth considering over Guidance Chips. Plus, if I no longer need Deadeye I have an interesting choice whether to take a Scimitar to save points or a Gamma Vet to get a different EPT like Crack Shot, Lightning Reflexes, etc... That sounds fantastic to me because it really opens up so many more options for TIE Bomber builds.