A recent discussion about Tactician got me thinking about Outmaneuver (thanks to IPeregrine), and how it relates to the ruling that we got from Frank as it pertained to Tactician and a turreted ship.

In this scenario, the ship has Tactician and Outmaneuver.

Since Tactician is considered not in arc in the above example because the shot is out of arc, how would that work with Outmaneuver?

Have you attacked a ship in your firing arc or not?

You must measure the range at closest points, and therefore you've attacked the TIE at Range 1, which is out of your arc. Seems pretty simple to me.

You must measure the range at closest points, and therefore you've attacked the TIE at Range 1, which is out of your arc. Seems pretty simple to me.

Page 10 of the rulebook

"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."

Is it

1:fire in arc on a ship

2:fire on a ship and it is in arc?

The ruling on Tactician makes it that the shot is range 1 out of arc. Outmaneuver triggers if you have attacked a ship that is in your arc. So Tactician won't trigger but Outmaneuver will?

(Adding in only image of Tactician I could find)

The triggers are different. Tactician requires you to "perform the attack against the ship in your firing arc". An out of arc shot does not work here. Did the attack happen in arc, NO, so Tactician does not apply.

Outmaneuver requires "attacking a ship that is in your arc", which looks at if you are attacking a ship and is it in your arc. Yes and Yes.

Does that make sense?

This is starting to bake my brain...

You must measure the range at closest points, and therefore you've attacked the TIE at Range 1, which is out of your arc. Seems pretty simple to me.

Page 10 of the rulebook

"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."

I will just point out that the rulebook was written before turrets were a thing, and they operate rather completely differently to regular ships and are what's really at fault for all of this fuss. We should probably be referencing the rulebook for the Falcon as well in this case.

Something else to ponder: Did you add an extra die for Range 1? If you did, you shot out of arc. If you didn't, you didn't use the closest point when measuring range, and thus manipulated the range rules to suit your benefit.

The rule on page 10 is fine for non-turreted ships, but my take on it is a turreted ship must still use closest point to closest point when determining all aspects of the attack. Would the same ring true for checking for obstruction of the target. It doesn't matter if you can see some of the target, if the line between closest points intersects an obstacle, it's still obstructed.

You must measure the range at closest points, and therefore you've attacked the TIE at Range 1, which is out of your arc. Seems pretty simple to me.

Page 10 of the rulebook

"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."

I will just point out that the rulebook was written before turrets were a thing, and they operate rather completely differently to regular ships and are what's really at fault for all of this fuss. We should probably be referencing the rulebook for the Falcon as well in this case.

I'd be fairly sure they were factored in when the original draft of the rules was conceived. Y-wings were in Wave I and the Falcon was in Wave II, so they knew they were coming. It's the later additions of upgrades like Outmaneuver and Tactician that are the ones that stretch it to the limit.

I'd be fairly sure they were factored in when the original draft of the rules was conceived.

I'm going to have to disagree on that, since the rulebook's rules for attacking explicitly state that "the target ship must be inside the attacker's firing arc", making turrets physically impossible under the core rules.

Which doesn't mean I think we should throw the core rulebook away for this discussion, just that I think we should be looking at the rulebook which contains information on turrets at the same time.

The rules on turrets don't really help here, as they are pretty basic and just state you can target inside or outside of the normal arc. The only time it's a problem is when you've got cards like Tactician and Outmaneuver and the target overlaps the arc line that it seems to confuse.

Both cards rely on an attack taking place and that is the defining point for both. Tactician has been clarified as the closest points define whether it's in arc or not, and I think Outmaneuver should be the same.

However, on the reverse side of the argument, normal ships have any part of the base to get into their arc which give them more to shoot at, whilst turreted ships have to target the closest point, which is only going to be a corner (normally). It does seem to restrict turreted ships more than normal ships.

Without a doubt, it's a curly one. No wonder it's baked Sergovan's brain.

I guess it all comes down to how you read the sentance.

1. "When attacking (a ship) inside your firing arc"

2. "When attacking (a ship inside your firing arc)"

That is, does "inside your firing arc" refere to the attack or the ship. I could see it go either way.

It doesn't matter since a ship can be inside and outside your arc at the same tine. What matters is wether the edge of the range ruler you measure along is inside your arc.

This is also the only line that is important for obstructing attacks.

I'd be fairly sure they were factored in when the original draft of the rules was conceived.

I'm going to have to disagree on that, since the rulebook's rules for attacking explicitly state that "the target ship must be inside the attacker's firing arc", making turrets physically impossible under the core rules.

Which doesn't mean I think we should throw the core rulebook away for this discussion, just that I think we should be looking at the rulebook which contains information on turrets at the same time.

Turrets were in Wave 1, and Turret secondaries are indeed physically impossible under the core rules (and the current rules, even). The devs have as much as admitted it's a screwup on their part.

I'd be all for including the Falcon rules, but they don't actually tell us anything useful on this.

Hopefully we'll see a nice, big, juicy clarification on how turrets and arc checks work in the next FAQ. But until then, the Tactician ruling tells us pretty solidly that what matters for those effects is the line of attack . That counts for range, I don't see any reason to think you'd use a different check for the arc validation.

Turrets were in Wave 1, and Turret secondaries are indeed physically impossible under the core rules (and the current rules, even). The devs have as much as admitted it's a screwup on their part.

Where did the developers admit this? Source, reference, link? I'm curious and would like to read it. Thanks.

Turrets were in Wave 1, and Turret secondaries are indeed physically impossible under the core rules (and the current rules, even). The devs have as much as admitted it's a screwup on their part.

Where did the developers admit this? Source, reference, link? I'm curious and would like to read it. Thanks.

It was in personal discussions at GenCon last year. So you'll just have to take my (or VorpalSword's, he had the same conversation) word for it.

But their admission isn't terribly relevant. The timing on secondary weapons relevant to target selection is pretty clear.

Well, it's difficult to reference personal discussions, that's for sure.

I'm not disputing that you (and VorpalSword) had the discussions, I was just looking for something more concrete about what the developers said. Can you put any quotes to any particular names?

Well, it's difficult to reference personal discussions, that's for sure.

I'm not disputing that you (and VorpalSword) had the discussions, I was just looking for something more concrete about what the developers said. Can you put any quotes to any particular names?

Robert (Vorpal) spoke to James Kniffen. I spoke to Frank. We weren't exactly taking notes at the time (both conversations were during the GenCon events), but both of us brought up the Dark Curse/Blaster Turret ruling because of the problems it raised for timing. We both got generally the same response - that they knew it was broken but fixing it would require a large amount of errata that they weren't willing to do. Everyone knew how turrets were supposed to work, and they expected that to be enough.

I've sent an e-mail in asking Frank about this and directing him to this thread. If anyone else has a concern about how this ruling is affect checking arcs on a turreted ship I suggest you send an e-mail in as well, and everyone can post their replies here for comparison.

I received a response from Frank today and it is an interesting one.

Hello Sergovan,

In response to your rules question:

Rule Question:

How does a YT-1300, with a ship in arc at range 2 and out of arc at range 1 (with closest point to closest point being at range 1) resolve Tactician and Outmaneuver.

Please see thread "Turrets, Outmaneuver, and Tactician".

The issue arrises from Tactician itself since the initial clause is a bit ambiguous (“After you perform an attack against a ship inside your firing arc at Range 2”). It is unclear whether the attack needed to be inside of your firing arc, whether the attack needed to be at Range 2, simply the ship attacked needs to be both at Range 2 and inside your firing arc, or something else entirely. The intention is that the attack performed was a not at Range 1 or Range 3 but explicitly Range 2 and that that ship was inside of the attacker’s firing arc.

Therefore, to answer your question: if a YT-1300 equipped with Tactician and Outmaneuver is attacks an enemy ship at Range 2 (when measured inside of the firing arc) and at Range 1 (when measured closest point to closest point, not inside the firing arc), Tactician would not trigger and Outmaneuver could trigger (so long as the YT-1300 is outside of the defender’s firing arc).

You may treat Tactician as though it said “After you perform an attack against an enemy ship at Range 2, if that ship was inside your firing arc, it receives 1 stress token."

This is reverting my previous reasoning for my answer to Tactician although keeps mostly the same resolution. In fact, it removes an artifact from the previous ruling. This means that for a YT-1300 equipped with Tactician and Outmaneuver that is attacking a ship that is at Range 2 and straddling the firing arc, Tactician would still trigger (even if the closest point to closest point is drawn outside of the firing arc) and Outmaneuver could still trigger. With the previous ruling, it actually “punished” turret primary weapon ships for having this setup since another ship in the exact same situation would have been able to use both abilities.

Thanks for asking,

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

And, no, I did not make this up myself.

Ok. I'm actually having trouble following that, and I am still not sure it answers the question of what to do about backstabber if he is in arc for one weapon and out of arc for another on the same ship.

So, if I've got this right:

Range check depends on the line of attack.

Arc check is irrelevant of the line of attack.

I think that boils it down, right?

I thought it was just me and my fuse-blown brain but maybe its not.

Ok. I'm actually having trouble following that, and I am still not sure it answers the question of what to do about backstabber if he is in arc for one weapon and out of arc for another on the same ship.

Backstabber doesn't care about weapons, only whether or not he's in a printed arc. It doesn't matter if a turret has the potential to hit him - if he's out of the arc, he gets his bonus.

So, if I've got this right:

Range check depends on the line of attack.

Arc check is irrelevant of the line of attack.

I think that boils it down, right?

I think so....

I received a response from Frank today and it is an interesting one.

Hello Sergovan,

In response to your rules question:

Rule Question:

How does a YT-1300, with a ship in arc at range 2 and out of arc at range 1 (with closest point to closest point being at range 1) resolve Tactician and Outmaneuver.

Please see thread "Turrets, Outmaneuver, and Tactician".

The issue arrises from Tactician itself since the initial clause is a bit ambiguous (“After you perform an attack against a ship inside your firing arc at Range 2”). It is unclear whether the attack needed to be inside of your firing arc, whether the attack needed to be at Range 2, simply the ship attacked needs to be both at Range 2 and inside your firing arc, or something else entirely. The intention is that the attack performed was a not at Range 1 or Range 3 but explicitly Range 2 and that that ship was inside of the attacker’s firing arc.

Therefore, to answer your question: if a YT-1300 equipped with Tactician and Outmaneuver is attacks an enemy ship at Range 2 (when measured inside of the firing arc) and at Range 1 (when measured closest point to closest point, not inside the firing arc), Tactician would not trigger and Outmaneuver could trigger (so long as the YT-1300 is outside of the defender’s firing arc).

You may treat Tactician as though it said “After you perform an attack against an enemy ship at Range 2, if that ship was inside your firing arc, it receives 1 stress token."

This is reverting my previous reasoning for my answer to Tactician although keeps mostly the same resolution. In fact, it removes an artifact from the previous ruling. This means that for a YT-1300 equipped with Tactician and Outmaneuver that is attacking a ship that is at Range 2 and straddling the firing arc, Tactician would still trigger (even if the closest point to closest point is drawn outside of the firing arc) and Outmaneuver could still trigger. With the previous ruling, it actually “punished” turret primary weapon ships for having this setup since another ship in the exact same situation would have been able to use both abilities.

Thanks for asking,

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

And, no, I did not make this up myself.

I'm also not sure it addresses the target being at range 3 in arc but range 2 out of arc.

I thought it was just me and my fuse-blown brain but maybe its not.

It does require some unraveling. I had to go around on it a few times, but I think my "line of attack" summary does cover it. If you think of them as two separate checks it makes more sense.

Thanks for posting the answer, BTW, although one minor request - could you do something formatting-wise to separate your question from the answer? Would make it a little easier to distinguish where you leave off and Frank's response starts.