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.

But the previous ruling was defining a ship as "out of arc" for turreted weapons but "in arc" for non turreted weapons. Does this reply address that issue or not, I can't tell? Because if backstabber is in the falcons arc with concussion missiles but out of arc for the turret, how do you resolve Backstabbers ability?

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.

I'll remember that for the next e-mail post. After the sentence " Please see thread..." Frank's response starts.

I'm still going around on this one but I'm going to give it a bit of time. I just got home from work and posted it immediately, before anything really sunk in.

Okay, trying to break this down a bit...

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).

Range at line of attack = 1

In arc regardless of line of attack = true

Tactician = Does not trigger, not range 2

Outmaneuver = Does trigger, in arc.

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.

Range at line of attack = 2

In arc regardless of line of attack = true

Tactician = Triggers, range 2 for attack, and in arc

Outmaneuver = Does trigger, in arc

Yeah... So it seems to fit all the example cases provided, and sounds to me like what he's going for, especially with the way he rewords Tactician to explicitly separate the range check and the arc check.

I think I'm comfortable with that read.

But the previous ruling was defining a ship as "out of arc" for turreted weapons but "in arc" for non turreted weapons. Does this reply address that issue or not, I can't tell? Because if backstabber is in the falcons arc with concussion missiles but out of arc for the turret, how do you resolve Backstabbers ability?

There is no "out of arc for turret weapons". A ship is either in the arc or not - if you're attacking with a turret it lets you select a target who isn't in your arc, it does nothing to change whether you're in arc or not.

So if Backstabber is straddling the line for the Falcon's arc, he's in the arc, and doesn't get his bonus.

Edit: Ah, I think I see what you're asking now... I believe that the previous ruling only applied to checks when the ship was attacking, for effects like Outmaneuver. But either way, it's gone now (which is a good thing). Arc seems to be independent of the actual line of attack used, which removes a lot of these confusing points.

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.

This actually came up in a tournament a couple of weeks ago. My opponent was using an Outer Rim Smuggler with two Tacticians, and as long as I was able to straddle the arc line, he couldn't stress me. Interestingly, Tactician now gets a bonus on a turreted ship. If the defender is at Range 3 in arc but at Range 2 at the closest point, a turreted ship now gets the Tactician bonus, but a regular primary attack would not.

Good to see this is resolved the way I was hoping. It's a lot more consistent now, and seems to avoid all of the previous issues.

There is no "out of arc for turret weapons". A ship is either in the arc or not - if you're attacking with a turret it lets you select a target who isn't in your arc, it does nothing to change whether you're in arc or not.

He now seems to have clarified what he meant (I think) so that it functions exactly the way iPeregrin was saying it was supposed to work according to the rulebook and the determination of arc is independent of the line used to measure range.

Edit: blast it iPeregrine, my stirring defense of your position looses a lot of weight when you ninja me like that.

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.

This actually came up in a tournament a couple of weeks ago. My opponent was using an Outer Rim Smuggler with two Tacticians, and as long as I was able to straddle the arc line, he couldn't stress me. Interestingly, Tactician now gets a bonus on a turreted ship. If the defender is at Range 3 in arc but at Range 2 at the closest point, a turreted ship now gets the Tactician bonus, but a regular primary attack would not.

This can probably go either way depending on how you rule the line split - either it punishes big ships or it gives them a bonus.

I think a better way to look at it is that it makes it consistent with regards to the attack, if not the position. If the attack happens at Range 2, then Tactician can trigger, whatever line the range check happens to draw.

I think the last paragraph in Frank's response was a key one also. Where he said turreted ships got "punished", because you were only able to take a single point on the defender's base for the attack and the arc definition. Other ships got to check the defender's whole base. I suspect there might still be some ripples from this later on, but I'm glad we got it clarified. Thanks Serg.

Wouldn't it have just been easier to give the attacker the choice? A bonus die at range 1, or the stress at range 2, attacker's choice. I mean, the way turreted weapons are worded does make it sound optional:

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

I can't help but feel that the easiest solution for all of this would be a minor rules change. If a ship with a turret primary weapon is attacking a ship straddling the arc, the player may choose to resolve that attack inside or outside its firing arc (using the respective criteria for each), and treats all relevant abilities accordingly.

Wow, this is indeed very complicated. Bookmarked for reference!!

Wouldn't it have just been easier to give the attacker the choice? A bonus die at range 1, or the stress at range 2, attacker's choice. I mean, the way turreted weapons are worded does make it sound optional:

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

I can't help but feel that the easiest solution for all of this would be a minor rules change. If a ship with a turret primary weapon is attacking a ship straddling the arc, the player may choose to resolve that attack inside or outside its firing arc (using the respective criteria for each), and treats all relevant abilities accordingly.

To me this makes more sense how can you roll range 1 and claim a range 2 trigger if you want to give the ship a stress then roll range 2 from printed firing arc

I'll always take the extra dice over giving stress

To me this makes more sense how can you roll range 1 and claim a range 2 trigger if you want to give the ship a stress then roll range 2 from printed firing arc

You can't do this.

The range check is based on the range the attack is made at. If the attack is range 1, you get the extra dice and can't activate Tactician. If it's range 2, no extra dice but Tactician can activate. You then check the arc constraint, which is independent of the line of attack.

I can't help but feel that the easiest solution for all of this would be a minor rules change. If a ship with a turret primary weapon is attacking a ship straddling the arc, the player may choose to resolve that attack inside or outside its firing arc (using the respective criteria for each), and treats all relevant abilities accordingly.

This doesn't really help. The problem here was that the turret made "treat all relevant abilities accordingly" unclear when a target was straddling the arc edge/range bands. Allowing the ship to disable the turret wouldn't remove the ambiguity which surrounded it when it does use the turret.

This doesn't really help. The problem here was that the turret made "treat all relevant abilities accordingly" unclear when a target was straddling the arc edge/range bands. Allowing the ship to disable the turret wouldn't remove the ambiguity which surrounded it when it does use the turret.

It actually solves the problem quite neatly. If you choose to resolve your attack in-arc, you measure range as normal (closest within arc), and all abilities pertaining to in-arc attacks will resolve normally as if it wasn't a turreted attack at all. If you choose to resolve your attack out-of-arc, then you apply those measuring criteria (closest to closest, etc), and the attack counts as out-of-arc for all relevant abilities.

So, in the situation where an enemy ship is straddling the arc, and the closest point is at range 1, you choose which way to resolve the attack. If you choose to fire at the portion in-arc, you measure range normally, which would be range 2, and Tactician would trigger. If you prefer the range 1 bonus, you opt for the out-of-arc attack, measure closest to closest, and the attacks counts as out-of-arc, but Tactician doesn't trigger. This basically circumvents the issue of having to measure the different criteria (arc and range) separately, which is where the supposed ambiguity is coming from. There would be no situation where you declare an out-of-arc attack, but receive in-arc bonuses, because the attack was always out-of-arc.

This doesn't really help. The problem here was that the turret made "treat all relevant abilities accordingly" unclear when a target was straddling the arc edge/range bands. Allowing the ship to disable the turret wouldn't remove the ambiguity which surrounded it when it does use the turret.

It actually solves the problem quite neatly. If you choose to resolve your attack in-arc, you measure range as normal (closest within arc), and all abilities pertaining to in-arc attacks will resolve normally as if it wasn't a turreted attack at all. If you choose to resolve your attack out-of-arc, then you apply those measuring criteria (closest to closest, etc), and the attack counts as out-of-arc for all relevant abilities.

So, in the situation where an enemy ship is straddling the arc, and the closest point is at range 1, you choose which way to resolve the attack. If you choose to fire at the portion in-arc, you measure range normally, which would be range 2, and Tactician would trigger. If you prefer the range 1 bonus, you opt for the out-of-arc attack, measure closest to closest, and the attacks counts as out-of-arc, but Tactician doesn't trigger. This basically circumvents the issue of having to measure the different criteria (arc and range) separately, which is where the supposed ambiguity is coming from. There would be no situation where you declare an out-of-arc attack, but receive in-arc bonuses, because the attack was always out-of-arc.

I think turrets are powerful enough without giving them the option of turning their abilities and card effects (and those of their opponents, in some cases) on or off at will.

I don't entirely disagree, but turrets are already what they are. The only benefit this gives them is a choice, and it circumvents all these other issues completely. Doing it the other way - brute forcing turrets to act a particular way, all for one corner case - is only complicating the matter, as should be evident by all the current head scratching. If turrets need a nerf, that should probably be done some other way.

I like the simplicity of your suggestion WW.

I would rather have the option of picking in arc or not in arc and resolve all abilities that come from that choice than try to figure out what range/arc combo is in effect when I shoot.

The rules already support the "may" function but no one has ever tried to make a turreted shot optional before (I guess because the in-arc trigger is coming out in cards from recent wave releases so it has never been needed before). Of course I don't have my card list open and there may be a couple cards from earlier waves that might have called for it but the in arc requirement is something new to these rules threads as of late so I don't think that there were many, if at all, in arc triggers before now.

Turrets are getting a possible nerf, as far as the Team Covenant interview with Frank and that other guy at Gencon have hinted at.

This doesn't really help. The problem here was that the turret made "treat all relevant abilities accordingly" unclear when a target was straddling the arc edge/range bands. Allowing the ship to disable the turret wouldn't remove the ambiguity which surrounded it when it does use the turret.

It actually solves the problem quite neatly. If you choose to resolve your attack in-arc, you measure range as normal (closest within arc), and all abilities pertaining to in-arc attacks will resolve normally as if it wasn't a turreted attack at all. If you choose to resolve your attack out-of-arc, then you apply those measuring criteria (closest to closest, etc), and the attack counts as out-of-arc for all relevant abilities.

So, in the situation where an enemy ship is straddling the arc, and the closest point is at range 1, you choose which way to resolve the attack. If you choose to fire at the portion in-arc, you measure range normally, which would be range 2, and Tactician would trigger. If you prefer the range 1 bonus, you opt for the out-of-arc attack, measure closest to closest, and the attacks counts as out-of-arc, but Tactician doesn't trigger. This basically circumvents the issue of having to measure the different criteria (arc and range) separately, which is where the supposed ambiguity is coming from. There would be no situation where you declare an out-of-arc attack, but receive in-arc bonuses, because the attack was always out-of-arc.

This expands considerably on your original suggestion, and requires more rule changes than I think you're giving it credit for. At the very least, you're tying the concept of a target being in arc to the attack, which raises its own set of problems. This would lead to a target being in the arc up until the attack begins, then out of the arc once you're using a turret, then back in the arc for any other abilities. That seems to have at least as much potential for confusion as the current structure.

It's the same suggestion, only worded differently for the sake of comprehension.

Whether the target ship is in or out of arc at any other time is immaterial, and would follow the normal rules of the game. For example, if Han and Backstabber are both on the board, and we put them into the same scenario we've been talking about, then Backstabber would count as being in arc and not receive the benefit of his own ability. How Han chooses to resolve his attack won't affect that situation, even if he chose to make an out-of-arc attack. The attack is isolated, and has no bearing on the game state apart from relevant triggers (like the ones we've been discussing). I'm not really seeing where the potential for confusion is coming from, unless there are people out there who also can't wrap their minds around how primary and secondary weapons work. Attacking players are likewise given a choice in that scenario, but I don't think I've ever shot at someone from range 3 and then had an extended debate as to why I received an extra green die and they didn't.

We can accept that turrets already break some of the most fundamental rules of the game, can't we? All this does is facilitate that process by defining how, when, and for what duration those rules are broken. This really shouldn't be any more confusing that it already is, and considerably less so than Frank's email. Ships cannot normally fire out of their printed arc, but turreted ships can. If the controlling player chooses to declare his attack in-arc, all the normal rules for attacking apply, to include range determination. That attack is then considered 'in-arc' for the purpose of determining subsequent triggers. If the controlling player chooses to declare his attack out-of-arc, then a new subset of rules applies for the duration of that attack, also to include range determination (here, closest to closest). That attack is then considered 'out-of-arc' for the purpose of determining subsequent triggers. At any other time, range and arc are determined normally.

I agree that the whole situation isn't as simple as any of us would like it to be, but we really don't have any choice, do we? So, tell me what kinds of other rules changes would be necessary, and share with me any potentially confusing scenarios you can envision.

See, I think the email is very clear.

1) Pick a target

2) Make an attack - check range, roll dice, roll defense blah blah blah

After the attack, check the 2 conditionals for Tactician

a) Was the attack made at range 2? Yes/No

- You know what the range is when you made the attack. That's the range.

b) Was the attack made against a target that is in the front arc? Yes/No.

- If any part of the target is within the front arc of the ship, the target is considered to be in the front firing arc

Now, with turret weapons, outside the arc can be at range 1 and inside can be at range 2, but that's not really relevant. We know how to check range with turret weapons and we know how to check if a target is in arc. So that's how we do it.

Yes, it does mean that in that situation, forward firing weapons would cause stress with tactician and turret weapons wouldn't. Take some cluster missiles on your YT-1300 and double stress the ship. It also means that the same applies to a ship that is in range 3 within arc but range 2 outside the arc, you can stress those ships with your turrent because the attack is made at range 2.

- Editted for spelling.

See, I think the email is very clear.

1) Pick a target

2) Make an attack - check range, roll dice, roll defense blah blah blah

After the attack, check the 2 conditionals for Tactician

a) Was the attack made at range 2? Yes/No

- You know what the range is when you made the attack. That's the range.

b) Was the attack made against a target that is in the front arc? Yes/No.

- If any part of the target is within the front arc of the ship, the target is considered to be in the front firing arc

Now, with turret weapons, outside the arc can be at range 1 and inside can be at range 2, but that's not really relevant. We know how to check range with turret weapons and we know how to check if a target is in arc. So that's how we do it.

Yes, it does mean that in that situation, forward firing weapons would cause stress with tactician and turret weapons wouldn't. Take some cluster missiles on your YT-1300 and double stress the ship. It also means that the same applies to a ship that is in range 3 within arc but range 2 outside the arc, you can stress those ships with your turrent because the attack is made at range 2.

- Editted for spelling.

Alright, so where do you insert the check for Outmaneuver? It obviously can't come afterwards.

Before.

This bit is in the "Make the attack" part.

A target is inside your firing arc if any part of the target is inside the firing arc.

You are within another ship's firing arc if any part of you ship is inside that ship's firing arc.

Doesn't matter where the closest point is.

Alright. So an enemy in-arc is always in-arc, even when attacking out-of-arc. So a range 1 shot being resolved as an out-of-arc attack is simultaneously a range 2 shot in-arc. Not exactly the pinnacle of clarity, if you ask me.

No it is a Range 1 attack on a ship that is in -arc.

But it's not being resolved in-arc.

I'm just trying to make a point here. Frank's email isn't incomprehensible, but it's also not as straightforward as some people might think it is.