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.

Honestly I'd prefer not to feel like I need to use Deadeye to make my TIE Bombers work. I just haven't found another viable method yet. Guidance Chips help and are welcome, but are not sufficient by themselves because they don't solve the problem of how to get and use a lock in the early game. Only Deadeye and LRS address this. LRS comes with issues of its own:

1. It prevents the use of Guidance Chips (this is kind of a flaw with the "upgrade slots" model in general)

2. It telegraphs your target and makes switching difficult

3. It makes getting the second lock too awkward

Munitions are finally viable after how many years/waves...and here come the complaints.

The issue is the devs continually make big base ships too good and too cheap in comparison to alot of fighters.

Uboats are the issue no one's claiming gamma vets using deadeye are OP.

The issue is the devs continually make big base ships too good and too cheap in comparison to alot of fighters.

Uboats are the issue no one's claiming gamma vets using deadeye are OP.

we play a game where a small based ship can outgun a large based ship.

Because a large based ship doesn't have any outstanding damage output, and action abundance make small ones even more resilent.

so hardly such an issue. If JM5k was a small based ship like K-wing it would have been even better than a large one.

had K-wing an EPT on Warden we would have seen it a wave before and that'd be even more brutal...

The issue is the devs continually make big base ships too good and too cheap in comparison to alot of fighters.

Uboats are the issue no one's claiming gamma vets using deadeye are OP.

we play a game where a small based ship can outgun a large based ship.

Because a large based ship doesn't have any outstanding damage output, and action abundance make small ones even more resilent.

so hardly such an issue. If JM5k was a small based ship like K-wing it would have been even better than a large one.

had K-wing an EPT on Warden we would have seen it a wave before and that'd be even more brutal...

Contracted Scouts would have a much worse matchup against Palp Aces if the Jumpmaster were a small base ship. The large base is a major boon for blocking.

had K-wing an EPT on Warden we would have seen it a wave before and that'd be even more brutal...

What? Scouts are dangerous because they have access to Deadeye, Guidance Chips, and R4 Agro/Overclocked R4. Warden would have had one of those. Even if you gave it Guidance Chips, it still wouldn't have had the impact that the 90% 4/4 hit Scouts did initially. And not only would its firepower have been lower, having only one agility at PS2 would have made them significantly easier to PS kill.

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

against a target with higher PS is.

Difficulty, not inability.

´

Please do the math for me how I get a range 3 shot against someone who moves after me and can count till 11.

The Table is 22x4cm wide. Range 3 is 7.5x4cm, etc

How do I get my range 3 target lock in a turn BEFORE my opponent can close into range 1. You move of minimum of 2 ship-lengths, there is no ship which has not at least a straight 3, together that's 6 ship-lengths, which is more than 2 range bands. Even the half length you could barrel roll backwards would not mage a difference on a small ship, while large ships move with a minimum of 3 and could barrel roll one backwards. Does not change the outcome.

Your opponent can make mistakes, sure, but that is not difficulty that is just hoping for a screw up and out of your own hands. You could as well have one forward ship which gives away or shares his own target locks with ships in the back, but that is again circumvent that praised targeting mechanic for ordnance. ;-)

Meanwhile the biggest issue for ordnance itself is not even the targeting mechanic, but that you have to spend your target lock for basically all torpedos and most missiles. Though this is a balancing talk, and not the focus of the topic. Homing Missiles and proton rockets have indeed their uses even outside of the scouts deadeye + infinitive focus + chimps combo .

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

against a target with higher PS is.

Difficulty, not inability.

´

Please do the math for me how I get a range 3 shot against someone who moves after me and can count till 11.

The Table is 22x4cm wide. Range 3 is 7.5x4cm, etc

How do I get my range 3 target lock in a turn BEFORE my opponent can close into range 1. You move of minimum of 2 ship-lengths, there is no ship which has not at least a straight 3, together that's 6 ship-lengths, which is more than 2 range bands. Even the half length you could barrel roll backwards would not mage a difference on a small ship, while large ships move with a minimum of 3 and could barrel roll one backwards. Does not change the outcome.

Your opponent can make mistakes, sure, but that is not difficulty that is just hoping for a screw up and out of your own hands. You could as well have one forward ship which gives away or shares his own target locks with ships in the back, but that is again circumvent that praised targeting mechanic for ordnance. ;-)

Meanwhile the biggest issue for ordnance itself is not even the targeting mechanic, but that you have to spend your target lock for basically all torpedos and most missiles. Though this is a balancing talk, and not the focus of the topic. Homing Missiles and proton rockets have indeed their uses even outside of the scouts deadeye + infinitive focus + chimps combo .

You could always start with your ship sideways to slow roll even more. Also against higher PS ships there is a fun mini-game of "he knows I know he knows I know....." where you have to out think the opponent but not out think yourself. Then again I fly a ps 8 ordance list so I don't have thst problem most of the time.

Don't fly straight. Don't fly in formation. Use Tracers, LRS or an action/lock passer. Use short range ordnance that fires on the second round of shooting. Lots of things you could try. I don't know how well they work but that's because Deadeye can dodge the issue entirely.

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

against a target with higher PS is.

Difficulty, not inability.

´

Please do the math for me how I get a range 3 shot against someone who moves after me and can count till 11.

The Table is 22x4cm wide. Range 3 is 7.5x4cm, etc

How do I get my range 3 target lock in a turn BEFORE my opponent can close into range 1. You move of minimum of 2 ship-lengths, there is no ship which has not at least a straight 3, together that's 6 ship-lengths, which is more than 2 range bands. Even the half length you could barrel roll backwards would not mage a difference on a small ship, while large ships move with a minimum of 3 and could barrel roll one backwards. Does not change the outcome.

Your opponent can make mistakes, sure, but that is not difficulty that is just hoping for a screw up and out of your own hands. You could as well have one forward ship which gives away or shares his own target locks with ships in the back, but that is again circumvent that praised targeting mechanic for ordnance. ;-)

Meanwhile the biggest issue for ordnance itself is not even the targeting mechanic, but that you have to spend your target lock for basically all torpedos and most missiles. Though this is a balancing talk, and not the focus of the topic. Homing Missiles and proton rockets have indeed their uses even outside of the scouts deadeye + infinitive focus + chimps combo .

had K-wing an EPT on Warden we would have seen it a wave before and that'd be even more brutal...

What? Scouts are dangerous because they have access to Deadeye, Guidance Chips, and R4 Agro/Overclocked R4. Warden would have had one of those. Even if you gave it Guidance Chips, it still wouldn't have had the impact that the 90% 4/4 hit Scouts did initially . And not only would its firepower have been lower, having only one agility at PS2 would have made them significantly easier to PS kill.

can slow-roll, can disengage abruptly, don't suffer the large base curse, and the word INITIALLY is the key

Whiners like the OP are pathetic.

Ordinance is useless for years then when it becomes even remotely usefull..... Waaaaaa!!!!! Waaaaaaa!!!! Waaaaaa!!!

Pathetic Whiners. Learn to play this game.

This from "Imperial Homers" guy?

Please actually read the thread.

Whiners like the OP are pathetic.

Ordinance is useless for years then when it becomes even remotely usefull..... Waaaaaa!!!!! Waaaaaaa!!!! Waaaaaa!!!

Pathetic Whiners. Learn to play this game.

The pot calling the kettle black

Munitions are finally viable after how many years/waves...and here come the complaints.

Seen many missiles/torps, outside of JumpMaster builds lately have we?

No. We haven't...

Here's the issue, the usage of cards or upgrades in the meta works a lot like the free market is supposed to. Basically, when you see literally NO ONE using something, it means it's underpowered for the points it costs. Conversely, when you see a LOT of people using something, then it's probably overpowered.

Fact: in the early waves of the game, almost no one used ordinance.

It was simple, it just cost too much for the damage it did and how much effort you had to put into using them. Mechanics around firing a torp/missile didn't work well. FFG tried fixing it with munitions failsafe, which didn't work. There were a lot of possible fixes. Make torps cost less. Make them do more damage. Make it so you had to have a target lock, but didn't have to burn it JUST to fire your torps, then you could use the TL for rerolls on the damage.

There's literally nothing wrong with Deadeye. It costs 1 point, you're really only going to use it once or twice a game, and most importantly, it takes up your EPT slot so you can't take something else. The opportunity cost of Deadeye is HUGE.

Ord. without deadeye is simply too unreliable to actually pull off. The current state of the game is to stack ALL the mods and tokens before you shoot, in other words, make you attacks and defense as reliable as possible. If torpedoes and missiles were simply one shot cannons, in that you needed no tokens or other setup other than arc and range, you would see them a lot more. The setup cost on blaster turrets is the reason why it's never used other than occasionally with access to focus banking shenanigans, though the Carnors and Terochs of the world have made even that risky.

That's a balance argument. The case I'm trying to make is that regardless of balance Deadeye is not a good thing for ordnance's tactical depth.

There's literally nothing wrong with Deadeye. It costs 1 point, you're really only going to use it once or twice a game, and most importantly, it takes up your EPT slot so you can't take something else. The opportunity cost of Deadeye is HUGE.

What's wrong with it is that it removes the target locking element of ordnance, a part of the gameplay that often has more tactical depth to it than firing a primary: Deadeye strips that out and adds no new tactical considerations in its place.

I suppose its the conflict between two ways of thinking. I'll try to explain with a more extreme example.

Assume that a modification is released that allows you to set your dial when you activate. It has no limits to it apart from point cost.

The first school of thought is that this upgrade is fine if you cost it appropriately.

The second school of thought is that this modification removes the planning phase. Yes, you have to pay for it, but it's taking gameplay out of the game (in this case predicting maneuvers) and the game is not stronger for having that gameplay removed.

That's my view on Deadeye: I don't think it's an option that makes ordnance gameplay better. I think ordnance is lesser for it.

There's literally nothing wrong with Deadeye. It costs 1 point, you're really only going to use it once or twice a game, and most importantly, it takes up your EPT slot so you can't take something else. The opportunity cost of Deadeye is HUGE.

What's wrong with it is that it removes the target locking element of ordnance, a part of the gameplay that often has more tactical depth to it than firing a primary: Deadeye strips that out and adds no new tactical considerations in its place.

the only thing it does is makes ordnance a complete and utter garbage against high-ps enemies especially with reposition.

as if the game had no bias towards the PS race and dodgers >_>

Ord. without deadeye is simply too unreliable to actually pull off.

That's a balance argument. The case I'm trying to make is that regardless of balance Deadeye is not a good thing for ordnance's tactical depth.

There's literally nothing wrong with Deadeye. It costs 1 point, you're really only going to use it once or twice a game, and most importantly, it takes up your EPT slot so you can't take something else. The opportunity cost of Deadeye is HUGE.

What's wrong with it is that it removes the target locking element of ordnance, a part of the gameplay that often has more tactical depth to it than firing a primary: Deadeye strips that out and adds no new tactical considerations in its place.

I suppose its the conflict between two ways of thinking. I'll try to explain with a more extreme example.

Assume that a modification is released that allows you to set your dial when you activate. It has no limits to it apart from point cost.

The first school of thought is that this upgrade is fine if you cost it appropriately.

The second school of thought is that this modification removes the planning phase. Yes, you have to pay for it, but it's taking gameplay out of the game (in this case predicting maneuvers) and the game is not stronger for having that gameplay removed.

That's my view on Deadeye: I don't think it's an option that makes ordnance gameplay better. I think ordnance is lesser for it.

The problem is you are going under the assumption that Ordnance was fine as it was. In this type of game, rules are meant to be broken. Which is why the Golden Rule exists.

You are looking at the card in a pure vacuum. You can't really judge whether or not a card deserves to be in the game or not in that vacuum. Deadeye did not break anything in the 6 waves it existed before Jumpmasters. The opportunity cost of Deadeye on ships with only one ordnance slot is pretty high.

That's a balance argument again.

Whether or not ordnance needs Deadeye to be tournament competitive is completely irrelevant to the argument I'm making. If ordnance is underpowered without Deadeye FFG can simply buff it again. It may not even need buffing: Deadeye is such a simple option that there's no real incentive to explore the limits of LRS and the Thread Tracers.

My case is that using ordnance is tactically deeper without Deadeye: it's a mechanical issue rather than a costing one. It's a gripe that has nothing to do with power whatsoever.

That's a balance argument again.

Whether or not ordnance needs Deadeye to be tournament competitive is completely irrelevant to the argument I'm making. If ordnance is underpowered without Deadeye FFG can simply buff it again. It may not even need buffing: Deadeye is such a simple option that there's no real incentive to explore the limits of LRS and the Thread Tracers.

My case is that using ordnance is tactically deeper without Deadeye: it's a mechanical issue rather than a costing one. It's a gripe that has nothing to do with power whatsoever.

And again, you can't really separate the two. Because this game is ALL about breaking the rules. There are many more cards that break the rules in far, far more game impacting ways than Deadeye. Heck, a lot of them are about as useful was Deadeye used to be as well.

And again, you can't really separate the two.

I disagree.

I'm of the view that there are upgrades that should not be made regardless of how expensive they are. Deadeye I simply dislike but it's certainly possible to design a card that's not unbalanced yet terrible for the game.

That's a balance argument again.

Whether or not ordnance needs Deadeye to be tournament competitive is completely irrelevant to the argument I'm making. If ordnance is underpowered without Deadeye FFG can simply buff it again. It may not even need buffing: Deadeye is such a simple option that there's no real incentive to explore the limits of LRS and the Thread Tracers.

My case is that using ordnance is tactically deeper without Deadeye: it's a mechanical issue rather than a costing one. It's a gripe that has nothing to do with power whatsoever.

The incentive to use LRS or Thread Tracers is that most cheap ordinance carriers lack EPTs. If you want to perform an alpha strike with Z-95s for example, there's incentive to use Thread Tracers.

The problem is there's no reason to use those cheap ordinance carriers when Jumpmaster 5000s exist. Even Gamma Squad Veterans, which can equip Deadeye, are rarely seen. Deadeye isn't pushing out other ordinance upgrades; Deadeye+Contracted Scouts is pushing out other ships that actually need to use other ordinance upgrades.

Exactly. And because Deadeye Jumps get used instead LRS bombers haven't really been tested.