PCGamerPirate came up with a diagram over on Reddit to demonstrate a scenario where you have a target that's half in a Falcon's primary arc but the closest point is out of arc. In this scenario would tactician trigger? He believes no, but I'm not so sure, is the ship not considered in arc and at Range 2? Obviously would agree is the closest corner was in R1 and will concede that the attack occurs outside of the arc but that's not what the wording is.

Out of the FAQ today all it says on the subject is "Ships attacking with turret weapons must measure from closest point to closest point when determining range."

First, this belongs in the Rules query section above.

Secondly, Tactician won't trigger since the closest point using the turret is outside of arc. If you chose to not use your turret ability, then Tactician would trigger.

So in the case of the YT-1300, he could trigger tactician by choosing not to use the turret ability. If it was a Y-Wing with an Ion Cannon Turret, it would have to fire it's primary weapon instead of the turret.

Edit: I don't have the YT rules in front of me, so I'm going off memory that the turret is a "may choose to fire outside your arc" style ability.

I think it applies just by being in arc, whether that is the closest point or not. The ship is in his arc, at range 2, and he is firing at it. That is all Tactician requires.

I'm saying this off the cuff and not looking at the FAQ.

Looking at it alternately, why should the Falcon's turret punish it when any ship without a turret would trigger Tactician in this case.

That said, I think this could be redrawn where the target is partially at Range 1, but the part at Range 2 is inside his arc. That would be weird, but I'd think it would be a range 1 bonus shot with no Tactician because they are not "at Range 2", they are at Range 1, which is the same for any ship whether the target is in arc or not.

Read through this thread

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/109927-tactical-falcon-question/

I believe it covers most of the arguments and the answer

Well, here is an answer. Make of it what you will.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/109927-tactical-falcon-question/?p=1161884

EDIT: Ninja'd of course.

First, this belongs in the Rules query section above.

Secondly, Tactician won't trigger since the closest point using the turret is outside of arc. If you chose to not use your turret ability, then Tactician would trigger.

So in the case of the YT-1300, he could trigger tactician by choosing not to use the turret ability. If it was a Y-Wing with an Ion Cannon Turret, it would have to fire it's primary weapon instead of the turret.

Apologies.

Wait is that a thing, can the YT choose not to use it's turret when firing with it's primary weapon?

Wait is that a thing, can the YT choose not to use it's turret when firing with it's primary weapon?

It's turret is its primary weapon. Turret weapons will always measure from closet point to closest point.

Wait is that a thing, can the YT choose not to use it's turret when firing with it's primary weapon?

It's turret is its primary weapon. Turret weapons will always measure from closet point to closest point.

Okay ya that's what I thought, obviously with a secondary weapon there's a choice but didn't think the Falcon could make that choice with his primary weapon.

First, this belongs in the Rules query section above.

Secondly, Tactician won't trigger since the closest point using the turret is outside of arc. If you chose to not use your turret ability, then Tactician would trigger.

So in the case of the YT-1300, he could trigger tactician by choosing not to use the turret ability. If it was a Y-Wing with an Ion Cannon Turret, it would have to fire it's primary weapon instead of the turret.

Apologies.

Wait is that a thing, can the YT choose not to use it's turret when firing with it's primary weapon?

No, it can't.

/Delete

Krynn007, read the link given in post #5 of this thread.

Ya sorry I should've copied over the answer for others.

Here's a quote from Frank Brooks in the like above: "No. Although part of the defender is inside of the firing arc at Range 2, since the closest point of the defender is outside of the YT-1300’s firing arc, the attack is considered “performing an attack against a ship outside of the attackers firing arc". Therefore Tactician does not trigger to assign the defender 1 stress token."

I stand corrected then

My bad

After rereading Tacticiana couple times I realized that I was thinking primary firing arc but it only says firing arc, so yes that makes sense. I'll just delete my previous post so not too confuse anyone

No worries, definitely the first time I've seen the attack out of arc overrides the ships base being in the primary arc. Trying to think if that affects any other combo, would be the same for Outmaneuver on the YT as well then if the ship didn't have you in its arc it still wouldn't trigger in the above scenario.

And more obviously maybe with Y-wings or HWKs using turrets (or Nera w torpedoes) + Tactician or Outmaneuver.

I'm going to have to disagree with some people here... Kind of.

Tactician states: "After you perform an attack against a ship inside your firing arc at Range 2, that ship receives 1 stress token."

From the FAQ: "Ships attacking with turret weapons must measure from closest point to closest point when determining range."

Official answer from FFG:

Rule Question:
A YT-1300 with Tactician has a target, in its front arc at range 2 but out of arc at range 1, so the attack is done at range 1.

Would Tactician work on the target in question and give it a stress token?

No. Although part of the defender is inside of the firing arc at Range 2, since the closest point of the defender is outside of the YT-1300’s firing arc, the attack is considered “performing an attack against a ship outside of the attackers firing arc". Therefore Tactician does not trigger to assign the defender 1 stress token.

Ok...

E-mail scenario :

Defender is at range 2 in firing arc and range 1 out of arc.

I believe Tactician should not trigger.

Why? Tactician has 2 requirements: ship is in arc (true), ship is at range 2 (false - see FAQ entry).

OP scenario :

Defender is at range 2 in firing arc and range 2 out of arc.

I believe Tactician should trigger.

Why? Tactician has 2 requirements: ship is in arc (true), ship is at range 2 (true).

The subtlety seems to come from the FAQ wording, which specifically states that the closest point to closest point measurement is to be used only when determining range - therefore it should have no effect when checking for the defender being in or out of arc.

The part of FFG's answer that does not sit well with me is the "the attack is considered 'performing an attack against a ship outside of the attackers firing arc'" part. It seems to imply that the closest point to closest point measurement should be used both for determining range and checking for arc... Which contradicts the FAQ...

I love flowcharts !

The subtlety seems to come from the FAQ wording, which specifically states that the closest point to closest point measurement is to be used only when determining range - therefore it should have no effect when checking for the defender being in or out of arc.

Although you make a disturbing kind of sense, every bit of me says "no". The point you measure to should be the only point on the ship's base you consider for the purposes of making an attack. Otherwise, shenanigans like range modifiers, obstacles, and the like could seriously complicate matters. No, if the closes point on the defender's base is not inside your firing arc, Tactician cannot trigger.

Also, from the basic Rules PDF:

An enemy ship is inside the active ship’s firing arc if any part of the enemy ship’s base falls inside the angle defined by the wedge shape.

This was written before 360 degree arcs existed but, the YT rules simply adds the following :

When attacking with a turret primary weapon, a ship may target an enemy ship inside or outside its firing arc.

Let's consider FFG's response, and what seems to be the consensus : that OP's example would have Tactician NOT trigger.

If Tactician does NOT trigger, it means one of 2 things :

• Defender is out of arc.
• Defender is not at range 2.

Which would mean the defender is out of arc... That does not sit well with me at all.

It would mean that the weapon used to attack has an effect on whether a ship is in arc or not...

Which just seems like so much wrong.

Looking at the diagram in the OP's post it seems that the target is entirely in the R2 band. When it comes to Tactician it seems you need to ask two questions:

1. Is the target in the ship's firing arc.

2. Is the target at R2.

If the answer to both is YES the tactician works.

I would find it very silly if you have a ship that can hit the "back corner" of a ship with your firing arc and trigger Tactician but you could not if that ship is using a turret weapon. Of course looking at range it's also a bit amusing when shooting at a ship's "back half" that the "in arc" portion may be R2 but the front of the ship could reach into R1 if measuring the closest distance. To be honest, I'm not sure if a non-turret ship should get to use Tactician if the "out of arc" range still happens to be R1.

This is sufficiently answered in the latest FAQ. The answer matches what Frank Brooks said. I disagree with the ruling because it penalizes turrets when other ships in the same situation would trigger Tactician, but at least it is cleared up.

Under the Tactician Card:

Ships attacking with turret weapons must measure from closest point to closest point when determining range.

This is sufficiently answered in the latest FAQ. The answer matches what Frank Brooks said. I disagree with the ruling because it penalizes turrets when other ships in the same situation would trigger Tactician, but at least it is cleared up.

The FAQ is not as clear as it could be. It specifies the closest point is to be used for range measurements, not for checking in/out of arc, which is exactly what is the source of the problem here...

It seems you are correct on that. It had been a few days and I forgot the sublety of the issue as I was reading the new FAQ today.