From the rulebook:
"When a ship attacks a squadron, it can perform one
That is correct.
If there are 4 enemy squadrons in your left arc, you would roll your anti squadron armament dice 4 times.
If you are resolving a concentrate fire command dial or token, you have to chose a single attack out of the 4 to spend it on. So if you're shooting from the nebulon b escort and resolving a concentrate fire dial, 3 attacks would have 2 blue dice, and the 4th would have 3 blue dice.
However, that does count as firing from an arc for that turn. So if there is an enemy ship and two enemy squadrons both in your front arc you can only fire at one of them this turn (baring special rules).
However, that does count as firing from an arc for that turn. So if there is an enemy ship and two enemy squadrons both in your front arc you can only fire at one of them this turn (baring special rules).
As best of an answer I can come up with, but read page 2 "ATTACK" and it has your answers.
Page 2 of the RRG. You can only attack out of a Hull Zone once. It does not seperate out the difference between a ship or squadron when defining an attack and considers an attack an attack no matter the target.However, that does count as firing from an arc for that turn. So if there is an enemy ship and two enemy squadrons both in your front arc you can only fire at one of them this turn (baring special rules).
As best of an answer I can come up with, but read page 2 "ATTACK" and it has your answers.
I'm pretty sure that is what Konrad was saying. You pick your hull zone to fire from, and you may either fire at one ship within range, or all squadrons within range, within that firing arc. That firing arc has now shot once, and you cannot fire again out of that arc, unless you have some sort of special rule (such as advanced gunnery) that says you can fire from the same hull zone more than once.
That doesn't mean, however that you can't fire at something else with your second attack from a different hull zone, or even at any of those same things (provided they are also within arc of the second hull zone).
Also keep in mind that crit results have no effect.
So while doing a careful reread of the rules of attacking for this post, I had my oppinion changed regarding resolving the concentrate fire command against squadrons. Towards the end of step 6 in Attack: "Each enemy squadron can be targeted only once per attack." If I were to define "attack" based on these reading in any sort of logical way, this would mean to me that the entire series of rolls aimed at squadrons within a single firing arc constitutes a single attack, which also makes sense since each ship gets two attacks per round.
Now drop down to page 4 where we see that the Concentrate Fire command has the following rule text: "Resolve during the 'Resolve Attack Effects' step of an attack." Going back up to the attack steps, step 3 includes the following: "Modify Dice: The attacker can resolve any of its effects that modify its dice. This includes card effects and the [Concentrate Fire] command." Now I have two rules that I am trying to work out in my mind. Under Command Dials we learn that the dials/tokens are "spent" at the appropriate time, so in this case during step three of an attack. If that attack is against say three squadrons of fighters however, I may spend the dial/token during step 3 of against the first declared fighter, but that is only one step in a single attack. I'm really not trying to twist the rules here, but I think that language might be just intentionally vague enough to also intentionally allow a concentrate fire command to resolve against multiple squadrons in a single attack. Thoughts?
Except under Effect use and Timing it pretty specifically says a command may only be resolved once. I'm going to have to say no. Sure would be nice though.
Except under Effect use and Timing it pretty specifically says a command may only be resolved once. I'm going to have to say no. Sure would be nice though.
True, but wouldn't that one resolution cover the entire attack? Playing devils advocate at this point I think, but neither way seems set in stone to me yet.