One thing about the Y-Wing in 1.0 that bugged me was it’s lack of Missile ability which led to no Long Range Scanners. It didn’t make since that an ordinance ship couldn’t take a missile.

Wondering if ordinance in 2.0 will still be split between missile and torpedo? Will the new Y-Wing handle both? With the change in Target Lock, wondering if Long Range Scanners will even matter?

Ordnance is still split

Only revealed missiles so far (cluster/concussion) are weaker (apart from not needing to spend lock) and capped at 3 dice. Pro Torps are 4 dice

HIGHLY doubt we're getting lrs. It sets up highly modified alphas that I'm sure we're trying to get away from in 2.0

Dutch sort of helps with lock requirements, becoming a hybrid of his 1.0 self and Bodhi

Norra at initiative 5 is also a good torp caddie

According to https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/275051-x-wing-20-the-big-thread-o’-pilots/

3 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Ordnance is still split

Only revealed missiles so far (cluster/concussion) are weaker (apart from not needing to spend lock) and capped at 3 dice. Pro Torps are 4 dice

HIGHLY doubt we're getting lrs. It sets up highly modified alphas that I'm sure we're trying to get away from in 2.0

Dutch sort of helps with lock requirements, becoming a hybrid of his 1.0 self and Bodhi

Norra at initiative 5 is also a good torp caddie

According to https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/275051-x-wing-20-the-big-thread-o’-pilots/

LRS enabling highly modified alphas (via focus+target lock) was partly to make up for the fact that taking it meant you couldn't take guidance chips, which higher PS ordnance users would use. In a post guidance chips world, that part of LRS would certainly need to be curtailed. However, unless they alter when you acquire target locks, the various generic bombers (particularly the Tie Bombers and Y-wings, who won't have much else going for them) are going to suffer without a good number of unique pilots dedicated to supporting them, which takes up design space that could be used for pilots who did other stuff, as well as forcing squads with generic bombers to rely on a single pilot to do their thing, which is not ideal.

Ordnance is redesigned from the ground up, so all that stuff that was needed to fix ordnance like LRS, guidance chips, extra munitions, harpoons etc will either not be needed or will be baked into the design of the ordnance themselves.

So far the missiles we’ve seen have been oriented around multi-target utility and the torps have been focused around single targets. Kind of thematic if you think of missiles as being anti-fighter tools and torps as massive damage dealers against large single targets. It will be interesting if missiles and torps maintain a distinguished identity or if they just become different names for the same upgrades like in 1.0.

As for it being difficult for low ps/init Pilots to utilize ordnance in the first engagement... well honestly I’m okay if spamming generic ordnance carriers for a huge alpha strike ala gunboats is not a thing in 2.0. I think ordnance will mostly be something that gets used in the higher ps/init Pilots.

Low initiative Ordnance will be fine if priced properly

And if high initiative Ordnance is also priced properly (ie is much more expensive)

Just now, ficklegreendice said:

Low initiative Ordnance will be fine if priced properly

And if high initiative Ordnance is also priced properly (ie is much more expensive)

Not everything can be fixed by changing points costs. If low init Pilots can’t acquire the TL they need on first engagement, then ordnance won’t be effective on low init Pilots. If they make the Pilots cheaper, that doesnt make ordnance any better. If they make ordnance cheaper, that will just make the higher init Pilots better that can actually use ordnance effectively.

4 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Low initiative Ordnance will be fine if priced properly

And if high initiative Ordnance is also priced properly (ie is much more expensive)

Great point. The ability via the squad builder app to differentially price upgrades by ship has been well established. Do we know that they can do it by pilot? I would assume that they can, and if that's the case, they can certainly adjust the price of lock-dependent ordnance weapons on low-PS pilots.

They key here being that they can change the cost of the ordnance upgrade depending on which pilot equips it.

3 minutes ago, Babaganoosh said:

Great point. The ability via the squad builder app to differentially price upgrades by ship has been well established. Do we know that they can do it by pilot? I would assume that they can, and if that's the case, they can certainly adjust the price of lock-dependent ordnance weapons on low-PS pilots.

Has that been established by FFG? I’ve heard people saying that might be possible, but that was just more unconfirmed rumor/speculation that seems to be running rampant among the 2.0 hype crowd.

Having 10 different points cost for every card in the game depending on pilot seems to contradict the established fact that paper list building will be possible with a pdf reference sheet. Also that just sounds miserable to have to deal with.

6 minutes ago, Babaganoosh said:

Great point. The ability via the squad builder app to differentially price upgrades by ship has been well established. Do we know that they can do it by pilot? I would assume that they can, and if that's the case, they can certainly adjust the price of lock-dependent ordnance weapons on low-PS pilots.

They key here being that they can change the cost of the ordnance upgrade depending on which pilot equips it.

I'm sure they don't want to do too much of that, as then the pdf some people will be using for squad building will get horribly tangled. However, in this case they could simplify it by making the cost X+Pilot Initiative, or some such scaling formula.

3 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

Has that been established by FFG? I’ve heard people saying that might be possible, but that was just more unconfirmed rumor/speculation that seems to be running rampant among the 2.0 hype crowd.

Having 10 different points cost for every card in the game depending on pilot seems to contradict the established fact that paper list building will be possible with a pdf reference sheet. Also that just sounds miserable to have to deal with.

Per the FAQ on the product page: "Points will adjust based on the type of game that you are playing, and the cost of a card could vary under very specific criteria. For example, an upgrade card may cost more for one ship to equip than another ship."

29 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

Not everything can be fixed by changing points costs. If low init Pilots can’t acquire the TL they need on first engagement, then ordnance won’t be effective on low init Pilots. If they make the Pilots cheaper, that doesnt make ordnance any better. If they make ordnance cheaper, that will just make the higher init Pilots better that can actually use ordnance effectively.

Any problem can be fixed with greater numbers. That's how TIE Fighters got around despite being so crap

And potentially range 1-2 ordnance will help too

2 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Any problem can be fixed with greater numbers. That's how TIE Fighters got around despite being so crap

And potentially range 1-2 ordnance will help too

My counterpoint would be Advanced Cloaking Device and the original decloak mechanic, which in its heyday was allowing double Phantoms to dominate the meta with 14 point initiative bid. The mechanic was so fundamentally broken that even Whisper by herself could solo entire squadrons if they didn’t have a turret and never get attacked, so there was no amount of cost adjustment that would have fixed the problem other than making Advanced Cloakinf Device cost 70+ points or something.

ACD was busted yes. The ship also couldn't function without it

Ordnance vastly prefers higher initiative, but you're not ****** without it.

You CAN lock higher ps for ordnance. Esp if you're smart about range control and blocking

You CANNOT EVER enjoy ACD's effective +2agi against higher ps

Massive fundamental difference

LRS fixed the issue of low PS generics getting killed off in the second pass before ever getting a shot off with ordinance. A higher PS ship could stay out of range of the lock on the first pass, move in after the missile carrier took its actions, shoot. Then on the next turn shoot again before the low PS actives and kill it. Something like LRS is needed to fix an inherent design flaw.

The purpose of Long Range Scanners in 1'st edition was two-fold:

1) Similar to Guidance Chip, to fix the Spend-the-target-lock leading to low damage/cost-ratio of 1st edition munitions. LRS did this by providing you with target-lock and focus for your attack. This effect and Guidance Chips would be OP in 2'nd edition as munitions no longer requires you to spend that lock.

2) To provide low PS(now initiative) ships and/or ships without elite pilot talent slot equipped with deadeye with the ability to actually get a lock on a target - this has not been solved in 2'nd edition.

But Long Range Scanners could exist in 2nd edition, just with the requirement that you cannot use (target-)Locks to modifiy your attack dice when attacking with a munition, thus leaving you with only one modifier.

Lrs may no longer be necessary with scaling upgrade costs now being a thing

Or they may because DEADEYE doesn't really work anymore

Still, highly doubt they'll come back. Will probably have to rely on good ole actual manuevering to get the most out of your Ordnance

21 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

ACD was busted yes. The ship also couldn't function without it

Ordnance vastly prefers higher initiative, but you're not ****** without it.

You CAN lock higher ps for ordnance. Esp if you're smart about range control and blocking

You CANNOT EVER enjoy ACD's effective +2agi against higher ps

Massive fundamental difference

My larger point was that your blanket statement of “anything can be fixed with points adjustments” is false, which I’m hearing echoed by many people as a feature of 2.0 that makes it impossible for the designers to create broken mechanics that cant be fixed with points adjustments. In fact you can break the game in a way that points adjustments can’t fix.

IMO, being able to target lock your target before they get a chance to rush into range 1 is critical for ordnance users being competitive. Yes, a good player with low init ordnance carriers can beat a bad player that has higher init and doesn’t know how to jump from range 4 to range 1 or how to avoid a blocking trap... but the same is true for any bad list being used by a good player against a bad one right?

I'm not saying EVERYTHING can be fixed with points, but low initiative ordnance certainly can

If it's merely a question of initiative advantage, then scaling costs can address it. It, along with paying more for more initiative in general, is basically THE solution to the general massive advantage of moving last/shooting first

If it's a question of something like Miranda existing, then it's a critical failure of the new system

Something like mass LRS alpha would probably create more problems than it'd solve

Especially seeing as it flies in the face of toning down stacked, action independent modifiers

It occurs to me that there is a way to bring LRS into 2.0 without having it give the ability to stack focus and lock:

"Action: If another ship moves into range 0-3 and inside your firing arc this turn, you may acquire a lock on that ship."

Basically, Snap Shot for target locks, only it requires using your action to do so. It would prevent double-stacking, still require range and maneuvering, but would allow lower initiative pilots to acquire a lock on a higher initiative pilot, albeit at a risk of having the action fail entirely.

Still stacked, action independent mods

Only way LRS wouldn't go against 2.0 design is if you couldnt spend the lock at all (can only reaquire)

53 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

I'm not saying EVERYTHING can be fixed with points, but low initiative ordnance certainly can

This idea that "everything" can be fixed with points (which 100% I agree on), is very interesting with this new App concept.

However if there is one thing I really liked about 1st edtion, it was the fact that they did NOT spam mass Chardan-refit-style-only fixes, but rather attempted to fix a ship by adding a new ability with a title card (sometimes with negative cost and a negative effect also).

It was interesting as it opened up the gameplay and gave new roles to old ships i.e. The Defender but also required some hard choices, and Guidance Chips and Long Range Scanners fills a similar "fix" role.

It would hate to see that dissapear..

PS They had to doit that way as you would never buy a fix box just for -2/3pts if there was not something else init for you.

A mod that let's you delay taking only target locks till the start of combat round would sort out the issue. It's a minor buff without affecting the action economy.

14 hours ago, ficklegreendice said:

Any problem can be fixed with greater numbers. That's how TIE Fighters got around despite being so crap

And potentially range 1-2 ordnance will help too

Indeed. Cluster Missiles are a very good case in point, and a 'preferred choice' for lower PS missile boats for that reason; because there's no range 1 blind spot and you can be aggressive in closing for a lock

I had some fun not all that long ago by pointing out the whole Cluster Missiles/Accuracy Corrector for 1.0 generic advanced to a friend, who got to unload it at an event where he played 3 Ghost/Fenn in a row. That was rather satisfying to watch.

14 hours ago, Tvboy said:

If low init Pilots can’t acquire the TL they need on first engagement, then ordnance won’t be effective on low init Pilots.

No, it means that the ordnance becomes a second-strike weapon, rather than first strike. That comes with risks (most importantly the risk of your generic pilot being blown up with torpedoes still in the tubes) but that's a risk of any upgrade you staple onto a ship when there's a higher PS pilot about.

I've seen second-strike ordnance used before - as an example, when the T-70 first came out, I saw someone using 4 Rookies, with Flechette Torpedoes, Targeting Astromech, and Integrated Astromech.

With their low PS, getting a lock on the first pass was nigh impossible (or if you did, your opponent would generally get into range 1 and you'd have no shot). BUT, an X-wing with a focus token would generally take a nasty kicking but probably not die. Even if it did, the following turn the surviving three ships would K-turn, lock you, and pelt you with flechette torpedoes. Since you'd generally have to K-turn as well to keep pointed at them, this left you absolutely loaded with stress for several turns.

I'm not saying this is a tournament-winning squad. But it's an example of ordnance equipment that's designed to be used by lower PS pilots; torpedoes don't necessarily have to be fired in engagement turn 1 to be useful.

14 hours ago, RedHotDice said:

The purpose of Long Range Scanners in 1'st edition was two-fold:

1) Similar to Guidance Chip, to fix the Spend-the-target-lock leading to low damage/cost-ratio of 1st edition munitions. LRS did this by providing you with target-lock and focus for your attack. This effect and Guidance Chips would be OP in 2'nd edition as munitions no longer requires you to spend that lock.

2) To provide low PS(now initiative) ships and/or ships without elite pilot talent slot equipped with deadeye with the ability to actually get a lock on a target - this has not been solved in 2'nd edition.

But Long Range Scanners could exist in 2nd edition, just with the requirement that you cannot use (target-)Locks to modifiy your attack dice when attacking with a munition, thus leaving you with only one modifier.

I really hope they implement such an upgrade card - and this time around just require you to have 1 missile or torpedo slot.

6 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Indeed. Cluster Missiles are a very good case in point, and a 'preferred choice' for lower PS missile boats for that reason; because there's no range 1 blind spot and you can be aggressive in closing for a lock

I had some fun not all that long ago by pointing out the whole Cluster Missiles/Accuracy Corrector for 1.0 generic advanced to a friend, who got to unload it at an event where he played 3 Ghost/Fenn in a row. That was rather satisfying to watch.

No, it means that the ordnance becomes a second-strike weapon, rather than first strike. That comes with risks (most importantly the risk of your generic pilot being blown up with torpedoes still in the tubes) but that's a risk of any upgrade you staple onto a ship when there's a higher PS pilot about.

I've seen second-strike ordnance used before - as an example, when the T-70 first came out, I saw someone using 4 Rookies, with Flechette Torpedoes, Targeting Astromech, and Integrated Astromech.

With their low PS, getting a lock on the first pass was nigh impossible (or if you did, your opponent would generally get into range 1 and you'd have no shot). BUT, an X-wing with a focus token would generally take a nasty kicking but probably not die. Even if it did, the following turn the surviving three ships would K-turn, lock you, and pelt you with flechette torpedoes. Since you'd generally have to K-turn as well to keep pointed at them, this left you absolutely loaded with stress for several turns.

I'm not saying this is a tournament-winning squad. But it's an example of ordnance equipment that's designed to be used by lower PS pilots; torpedoes don't necessarily have to be fired in engagement turn 1 to be useful.

I've seen ordnance used on a low-PS flanker successfully (Mindlink Inaldra IIRC) by attacking laterally while the opponent goes for the bigger threats - getting lock+range is easier going from sideways than head-on.

There's also the fact that 2.0's cutting back on the power creep of red dice+mods means that second-strike ordnance carriers are more likely to live long enough to launch their payload than in the current game.