In the game, is there really a notable/noticeable difference between missiles and torpedoes? I know thematically there might be, but in the game, game mechanics, etc. is there something distinctly unique between them? Are some of the bombs now similar? Yes I've been out of the game for a while so honestly I don't recall.

Thank you,

The little picture on the upgrade bar and torps generally cost a little more but other than that no. They function identically, outside specials like seismic torp and thread tracer missles.

Missiles are better.

I can't think of any mechanics which specifically call out missile rather than torpedo upgrades. A lot of the better upgrades are missiles at the moment, though.

A handful of missiles allow you to fire them without needing to spend the Target Lock, that's about it.

Agreed. Can't wait for the day ffg releases a torp that doesn't spend it's targetlock when firing.

I think a few months ago, Torpedoes used to be better. Plasma Torpedos were cheaper than any reasonable missile, and the best ordnance ships had Torpedo slots. Now, there are two common missiles (Cruise, Harpoon) which don't spend their target locks (a missile-only trick, but not a trick on every missile) at strong points costs *cough*undercosted*cough* so the balance has swung back to missiles.

There isn't a technical difference between the two, but at least right now, Missiles do more damage when fired from most ships, particularly if you also have a focus.

8 minutes ago, Innese said:

A handful of missiles allow you to fire them without needing to spend the Target Lock, that's about it.

Most of them actually.

torpedoes suck and missiles don't. This is due to the infamous "T-65 clause" that states X-Wings can never be competitive in a game called X-Wing, a clause that was tragically invoked in the last FAQ when FFG realized one had slipped through the net.

There's no difference between torpedoes and missiles in the way the game handles their use.

But having both allow the game designers to be a little more flexible with their design options. For a while, certain torpedo carriers (JM5K) dominated so better missiles were made.

Certain ships can carry both missiles and torpedoes; Miranda in particular works well with either so her ordnance builds generally tends towards which ever missile or torp that is in vogue.

There is however a slight different between torpedoes and missiles and that is the upgrade Extra Munitions takes up a torpedo slot.

34 minutes ago, tangoraven said:

There's no difference between torpedoes and missiles in the way the game handles their use.

This is what I suspected. Odd though, other than giving more design space is doesn't seen like the designers kept any theme for their differences at all.

10 minutes ago, Ken at Sunrise said:

This is what I suspected. Odd though, other than giving more design space is doesn't seen like the designers kept any theme for their differences at all.

Yea, it would have been nice if maybe missiles were better against small ships and torpedoes were good against large ships. Or perhaps just having them focus on having missiles seeking to just do damage while torpedoes would be handing out crits, if not a focus on both. And maybe at one point, just looking at say wave 1 and 2 that might have been the idea but things have changed over time.

They are very similar, but IMO ships with missile upgrades tend to use them more often than ships with torpedo slots use their torpedoes. This ma just be that missiles are better. But I feel like the extra ordnance on a A-Wing is more significant than on an X-wing (or even a Y-wing or B-wing). Also ships with missile upgrades and no torpedo upgrade tend to be a little lighter than ships with just a torpedo slot.

I don't know if the patterns I have noticed are just noise.

I would totally be in favor of a 1 pt missile upgrade that just gives you a torpedo slot and a 1 point torpedo upgrade that just gives you a missile slot. It could even be a double sided card called special load out.

1 minute ago, Animewarsdude said:

Yea, it would have been nice if maybe missiles were better against small ships and torpedoes were good against large ships. Or perhaps just having them focus on having missiles seeking to just do damage while torpedoes would be handing out crits, if not a focus on both. And maybe at one point, just looking at say wave 1 and 2 that might have been the idea but things have changed over time.

I would love something like a 1 attack dice torpedo that did like 5 damage if it hit.

Torps have more ‘nonweapon’ upgrades, including an action torpedo. Missiles tend to hit more easily due to TLs not being spent or focus being used instead, as well as conclusions already turning a blank into a hit.

Torps also seem to do more damage or crits, but always spend TLs. This usually means torp boats use Deadeye for low ps pilots but also means they are often hurting for mods. This trend was already present in the original Proton Torps.

also bomb load out and EM suggest torps take up more space on a ship than missiles.

On a more serious note, I'm not sure the designers know or have really figured it out.

Torpedoes and Missiles, like most things from early waves, don't have a well defined concept for how they're specifically supposed to fit in the game or fit in relation to each other. If you look at Proton Torpedoes v. Concussion Missiles, they're basically the same weapon. They both cost the same, have the same attack value and ranges and both of them convert something that wouldn't normally hit into something that would (eye to crit or blank to hit). Average damage is basically identical for these two weapons not accounting for external factors or the possible extra value of the crit.

Now look at the two most recent entries fro each category, Plasma Torps and harpoons. Still sitting at range 2-3 and attack 4, one is 3pts, one is four. Both have ways to do extra damage with the Harpoons coming out well ahead mostly because the TL doesn't have to be spent (also possible other advantages like splash damage). At the end of the day though, these two pieces of ordinance are still really similar in terms of range, damage and cost.

For me, this is a pretty clear indicator that FFG just kind of doesn't know what to do or how to properly differentiate these two weapons which is not terrible, but basically means at any given point it's a game of ordinance roulette as to whether you have the better of the two slots...unless your name is Miranda and then you just get everything.

If Torpedos were introduced much later in the game (which would be odd given xwings have it) they'd probably have some kind of bonus against larger ships (either large base or hull value threshold).

But as it is, torpedos...exist. Theres better missiles, more easily used missiles, and missiles are generally cheaper. Torps dont do anything missiles dont and are more expensive.

Really no idea what they could do with torps to make them functionally different without either breaking the game in half. Regardless current torps would never be used but not like theyre used as it is.

Sadly, there's effectively no difference between categories, but there should be.

Missiles should be better against starfighters (e.g. require but keep the target lock, no extra range dice to defend). Torps should be harder to use but more devastating to make them more effective against capital ships (e.g. spend target lock, opponent gets evade dice a range, but their hits bypass shields).

16 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

Torpedoes and Missiles, like most things from early waves, don't have a well defined concept for how they're specifically supposed to fit in the game or fit in relation to each other. If you look at Proton Torpedoes v. Concussion Missiles, they're basically the same weapon. They both cost the same, have the same attack value and ranges and both of them convert something that wouldn't normally hit into something that would (eye to crit or blank to hit). Average damage is basically identical for these two weapons not accounting for external factors or the possible extra value of the crit.

The original dichotomy between Proton Torpedoes and Concussion Missiles is really interesting to me. Proton torpedoes were a hair stronger when fired with just a target lock, in that a crit is a hair stronger than a hit. Pretty slim. However, Concussion Missiles were stronger if you also had a focus token in addition to the TL. Vader, for example, could Lock and Focus on the same turn. The flip side is Horton Salm, who gets blank rerolls, so his Proton Torpedoes would hit harder.

If these were the only two missiles/torpedos, and they could be used interchangeably, it'd be an interesting little world.

The primary difference (especially in the beginning):

Torpedoes = a Rebel secondary weapon.

Missiles = an Imperial secondary weapon.

There is some crossover, obviously, but it's sort of a faction thing.

Trips provide Extra Munitions.

Torpedoes mostly suck, that's why Rebels get Torpedo slots on Xs, Ys, Es, Ghost, Us, Arcs and Bs. And their only viable Missile platform has to pay a 2-point tax to equip one, yay.

Nym and Miranda pay a missile tax? Coulda fooled me.

1 hour ago, Mef82 said:

Torpedoes mostly suck, that's why Rebels get Torpedo slots on Xs, Ys, Es, Ghost, Us, Arcs and Bs. And their only viable Missile platform has to pay a 2-point tax to equip one, yay.

A fairly-priced A-Wing isn't *that* much better of a missile platform than a Z-95. Don't get me wrong: I want A-Wings to lose the 2 point missile tax. But didn't a group of 7 missile Z-95s just make runner up at a pretty sizeable regional?

As to A-Wings, personally, I'd do it with an alternate title, so you'd have to choose between cheap missiles, or two Elite upgrades. My version would be "Reduce the cost of an equipped missile upgrade by 3, to a minimum of 0. When attacking, all damage cards dealt are immediately flipped face down without resolving their effect." So you couldn't score crits, even with primary weapons, but you'd have an interesting missile carrier.

Torpedoes have propellers.