Because you're adding something extra in there that doesn't need to be.

What is the range of the shot being taken? That's the range. 1/2/3.

Are you in arc? Yes/No

There's no [in arc range 2] vs [out of arc range 1]. They're entirely separate conditionals. It's [arc] and [range].

Outmaneuver doesn't care about range. It's only about the arc.

So in the example on page one, we have a ship that straddles the line of arc of the YT.

a) Target is in the arc of the YT.
b) YT is out of the arc of the target ship.
YT is eligible to use Outmaneuver.

Now, measure range. Closest point to closest point is at range 1, using the rules for the turret weapons.
c) Target ship is at range 1

After the attack, we check for Tactician.

1) Is the target in the front arc? We know that the target ship is in the arc of the YT, because we checked that already.
2) Is the target at range 2? We know the target ship is at range one, when we fired our weapon.

So no, Tactician doesn't work here. But Outmaneuver does.

I'm not adding anything. The enemy ship can be one, both, or either when it comes to arc and range, depending on how you look at it. You almost make it sound like this recent ruling is how it's always been, but it hasn't. Now, does Frank's email tell us how to handle this particular situation? Yes. Does it make perfect sense? No, especially considering the fact that it just changed overnight. It's an ad hoc solution to a problem that can be fixed in much easier ways, with fewer hoops to jump through. Present it however you like, but the fact that people are still scratching their heads says a lot about just how clear that email is.

With respect, I entirely disagree.

The range of 2 ships is closest point to closest point. It's that way for every range check. Buff abilities like Howlrunner, Target locks, passing tokens. Everything.

Only weapons are restricted to measuring range in the front fire arcs. But that is a conditional to those weapons only. Turret weapon rules tell us to check range from closest point to closest point, and that this is not restricted to the front firing arc.

Tactician is not a weapon. It does not state that range measurement is restricted to the firing arc though that would be the case for most weapons. The only 2 restrictions are if the [target is in the front firing arc] AND [the attack was made at range 2].

Before Frank's email you would have a case, but the email shows very clearly how to resolve this particular combination. I struggle to see how it doesn't make sense.

Because Frank has issued two seperate rulings on this same topic, the second of which occurred literally overnight. I don't think even he's sure what to do at this point, which doesn't bode well for the rest of us. It's a solution, yes, but an inelegant one designed to fit the situation, not the card or the rules.

So is the issue that you don't like the latest ruling? As in, you don't understand why he made the ruling he made?

Because I took it to mean you didn't understand what the ruling actually was.

Now, I'm not saying this issue isn't contentious, but surely it makes sense to take the latest ruling as precedent until something better comes along? Even if it was made in the last 6 hours.

In addition, the FAQ states under Tactician that the range for turret weapons is measured closest point to closest point, regardless of arc.

I've always understood the ruling(s), I was just making the point that it's not as straightforward as you would have us believe.

Page 17 of the FAQ:

Q: If a ship attacks an enemy ship with a turret weapon and the defender is also inside its firing arc, can the attacker

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, too.

In the picture, the brown ship has a turret. It attacks the blue ship. The shortest line (range measurement) is not (completely) inside the firing arc. Does anyone want to treat that as an attack outside the firing arc? I don't. The shortest line or the closest point on the attacking ship are not relevant for firing arc.

Good observation Dvor.

The shortest line or the closest point on the attacking ship are not relevant for firing arc.

Which is what the rules actually indicate. But then franks first email on this (I think unintentionally) indicated otherwise and the we spent a whole day arguing about it and that caused some people to get it stuck in their minds that whether a target was in arc or not depended on how range was measured. Then franks second reply came in and he fixed his mistake and went back to what the book says, but in trying to explain how the mistake happened in the first place he wasn't super clear on what was actually supposed to happen.

A simple statement of "whether or not a target is within a ship's firing arc is independent of determining the range to the target" covers the entire matter and is, I think, what we have all concluded frank's latest email was saying. Yes?

Which is what the rules actually indicate. But then franks first email on this (I think unintentionally) indicated otherwise and the we spent a whole day arguing about it and that caused some people to get it stuck in their minds that whether a target was in arc or not depended on how range was measured.

Did I miss a ruling email somewhere? I've seen a few references to this "overnight reversal", but our original Tactician+Turret response was almost two months ago.

A simple statement of "whether or not a target is within a ship's firing arc is independent of determining the range to the target" covers the entire matter and is, I think, what we have all concluded frank's latest email was saying. Yes?

I think sums it up nicely, and is pretty clean. It's certainly no worse than most of the other strangeness which come out of turrets.

Did I miss a ruling email somewhere? I've seen a few references to this "overnight reversal", but our original Tactician+Turret response was almost two months ago.

I think it was that ruling, but it got brought up again in a big argument in the "is 6 tacticians overkill" thread in the general section

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/121511-is-6-tacticians-over-kill/page-4#entry1254655

And that is what prompted sergovan to email frank again for additional clarification.

I took some time and looked into how many instances "firing arc" was brought up in previous releases to see if we could have bumped into this sooner or if another card combo will need an e-mail.

My list so far for pilot/upgrade cards that use "firing arc" in their description:

Wave 1 : Ion cannon turret (Y-wing); Backstabber

Wave 2 : Arvel (A-wing)

Wave 3 : Blaster turret (Hwk-290)

Transport: R3-A2

Wave 4 : Etahn (E-wing); Outmaneuver; R7-T1; Tactician

It looks like firing arc as a trigger is a newer trigger as far as the meta is concerned. Up until the Transport it didn't exist but to allow turrets to fire out of arc, Arvel to shoot while touching a ship in his arc, and Backstabber to pick up an extra die.

With the Transport and Wave 4 we get 6 triggers with "firing arc" so it technically is still in the meta shakedown period.

Ethan, R3-A2, Outmaneuver, Tactician all use the pilots firing arc and will be affected by this ruling.

R7-T1 and Backstabber use the defender's firing arc so it not affected by this ruling.

Um what about backstabber? Shouldn't he be on that list?

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, too.

In the picture, the brown ship has a turret. It attacks the blue ship. The shortest line (range measurement) is not (completely) inside the firing arc. Does anyone want to treat that as an attack outside the firing arc? I don't. The shortest line or the closest point on the attacking ship are not relevant for firing arc.

The point is moot if you treat it like a normal attack, which would be the most intuitive thing to do in this situation. The rules state that you may target an enemy ship inside or outside your firing arc, but there is no part of the enemy ship above that is outside of the arc. For what practical reason should it then be measured out of arc? Right now I'm debating with myself whether or not it's okay for a turret to potentially get a range 1 bonus for a ship that would otherwise be considered at range 2.

Look closely at the firing ship. A small part of the line of measurement is outside rhe arc due to the arc not being as wide as the base.

And you can never get a range bonus for a ship that is at range 2. If the turret would be able to dire so you get range bonus the ship is at Range 1

For all range measurement except standard attack tange is always measured closest to closest point. Attack range can never be less than that range

A small part of the line of measurement is outside the arc due to the arc not being as wide as the base.

Yes, I know that. What if that line was just barely, barely at range 1? That would mean that a line measured in-arc would actually make it range 2. The question that I posited was about whether or not it's fair for a turreted ship to receive a benefit (here, a bonus attack die) that obviously wasn't intended.

More food for thought:

Turret primary and secondary weapons allow a ship to ignore its printed firing arcs.

Maybe I'm taking it out of context, but if you're ignoring the firing arc you're ignoring the firing arc, aren't you? So why should a shot being measured from outside the arc (ignoring it) also be permitted to utilize in-arc effects (not ignoring it)? Bear in mind that the quoted text is taken from the FAQ, and not from the portion dealing exclusively with measuring range.

A small part of the line of measurement is outside the arc due to the arc not being as wide as the base.

Yes, I know that. What if that line was just barely, barely at range 1? That would mean that a line measured in-arc would actually make it range 2. The question that I posited was about whether or not it's fair for a turreted ship to receive a benefit (here, a bonus attack die) that obviously wasn't intended.

Obviously wasn't intended? It sure isn't obvious to me that turreted weapons are not intended to get range 1 bonus when closest point to closest point is range 1? On the contrary, it seems "obvious" to me that is exactly the intent.

The "may" part of the turret rules is not saying you may maesure range inside or outside your arc, it mearly states that the target of the attack can be inside or outside your arc.

Range is allways measured closest to closest point when using turrets. That much is very clear in the FAQ.

Q: If a ship attacks an enemy ship with a turret weapon and

the defender is also inside its firing arc, can the attacker

choose to measure range using the rules for its firing arc

instead of the rules for a turret weapon?

A: No. When attacking with a turret weapon (incuding a 360-degree primary

turret), range is always measured from the closest point to the closest point.

Obviously wasn't intended? It sure isn't obvious to me that turreted weapons are not intended to get range 1 bonus when closest point to closest point is range 1? On the contrary, it seems "obvious" to me that is exactly the intent.

The intent is to be able to fire at ships out-of-arc, not receive a bonus in some obscure corner case.

I understand very clearly what the rules state, my point was that they've already opened the door for a different, simpler way of resolving this very issue. Or, if not simpler, at least considerably more intuitive.

I guess intuitive is a subjective matter. It feels very intuitive to me to allways measure range from closest point to closest point when attacking with a turret weapon. One simple rule that applys in all situations.

Maybe it is subjective, but I'm a bit boggled that anyone can look at that picture above and think it makes perfect sense to measure range that way. Consistency can be had in all manner of different ways, and I see no reason to settle for a bad mechanic simply because it "applies in all situations."

Obviously wasn't intended? It sure isn't obvious to me that turreted weapons are not intended to get range 1 bonus when closest point to closest point is range 1? On the contrary, it seems "obvious" to me that is exactly the intent.

The intent is to be able to fire at ships out-of-arc, not receive a bonus in some obscure corner case.

FFG has demonstrated many times that they're willing to let obscure corner cases slide in favour of keeping the game simple. I refer you to the Corvette-blocks-attack-against-itself situation, a rather perfect example of an obscure corner case that nets the ship in question a somewhat weird advantage.

FFG has demonstrated many times that they're willing to let obscure corner cases slide in favour of keeping the game simple. I refer you to the Corvette-blocks-attack-against-itself situation, a rather perfect example of an obscure corner case that nets the ship in question a somewhat weird advantage.

Then I suppose we can agree to disagree about what constitutes "simple." Whatever direction they choose to go with this particular scenario, the game will not be what it was before Tactician and turrets started mixing.

Um what about backstabber? Shouldn't he be on that list?

Yup, I missed him.

He's on the list now.

Whatever direction they choose to go with this particular scenario, the game will not be what it was before Tactician and turrets started mixing.

Well, no it won't. But measuring range for turret weapons will.