From one of the official articles on the Raider. (https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/4/24/the-might-of-the-empire/)

Answer me this. How does a CR-90 fire it's primary weapon turret inside its firin arc? The Huge ship Rules doesn't say. It only tells you how to fire them outside the firing arc. So by the same logic, then the CR-90 can fire from either of it's 4 firing arcs or outside from the 'corresponding' sections firing arc. Whatever 'corresponding' then refers to, if the attack value is not specific to the fore section.

I am pretty sure we are all agreeing that the CR-90 can not fire from the firing arcs on the aft section.

Another thought: The Raider Article speaks of a sweet spot, where the firing arcs overlap. If you could fire the primary weapon from the rear section arcs, it really wouldn't be a sweet spot, because you could land almost all your attacks in either aft section firing arc.

TL;DR: The Raider's fore hardpoint follows exactly the same (lack of) rules the Raider's primary does. Either that hardpoint is the only secondary weapon not bound to attack using the firing arcs on the corresponding section, or both it and the primary are limited to the firing arc printed on the fore section.

***

Okay, I'll try again. For a more realistic situation than Captain Jonus, suppose we all consider the Raider rules again:

If the aft section of the Raider has a secondary weapon equipped to it, that secondary weapon must target a ship inside either firing arc.

The rules don't say what arcs a secondary weapon on the fore section can use, though. So we can use precisely the same logic being used here for the Raider's primary weapon: the rules don't say, so we can assume they mean any printed arc on the token. This is despite the relatively clear rules limiting secondary weapons on the aft section to attack only from the aft section.

But when you look at the CR-90 rules, they're more explicit, and the difference is illuminating:

If a section of the CR90 has a secondary weapon equipped, that secondary weapon must target a ship inside either firing arc from its corresponding section.

Both sections of the CR-90 have multiple arcs, so both sections get the note about using both firing arcs--but a fore upgrade can't attack from the aft arcs, and vice-versa. The aft section of the Raider gets the same note, because like the CR-90 fore and aft, it has two firing arcs. But the fore section has a single firing arc, and it seems likely that the person who wrote the rulebook simply assumes everyone knows that secondary weapons aren't shared between sections.

I agree that the RAW doesn't address whether or not the Raider's primary weapon can attack from the aft section. But since there are thematic reasons that it probably doesn't, and there are game-design reasons to suspect it doesn't, and there are precedents from the CR90's primary, the CR90's secondaries, and secondaries equipped to the aft section of the Raider that indicate attacks are not shared between sections of a Huge ship, to believe that the Raider's primary can't attack using arcs printed on the rear section. In other words, the RAW implies, though it does not state, that attacks are limited to their corresponding section.

And if you want to argue that those aft arcs can be used for the Raider's primary, you also have to allow secondary attacks from the Raider's fore section hardpoint to ride along. There is literally no logic that applies to one that doesn't apply to the other; the RAW doesn't address what we should do with either one, and all the same precedents apply.

The huge ship rules, quoted extensively on previous pages, say "corresponding base." The CR90's primary corresponds to a base. The only indication as to which base that is is the card on which the primary is printed.

In a section covering turret weapons. It's well known that turrets have separate rules from primary weapons. There is no symbol on one base or another to give the impression that one should be favored over the other. There is no visual evidence on the Raider itself that there is a weapon point on the front that is not also on the back. There is nothing to directly correspond with one base over the other. There is only a printing on the stat panel which is the source of the debate. The only other example covered under the huge ship rules so far is a ship with a defined primary weapon in the front of the ship and ship with no weaponry at all. Not a good basis for drawing comparisons with a ship that has a third configuration of weaponry.

Along with the naked generic HWK?

You're essentially saying that every build must be viable. That's an impossible design goal.

One style of play involves running four unupgraded Storm Squadron TIE advanced x1s.

By viable I mean that it could be expected to contribute to the game at least a significant portion of its point value, not be a game winner. A naked Hawk could still take a high PS pilot and act as a support. A TIE Advanced still could be expected to dodge fire, cause damage, and evade damage at base stats. While the bells and whistles make these ships more effective in their roles, they aren't hamstrung by the loss of 6-8 points to the extent the Raider would be if it lost 66% of its firing arc. Can you tell me one other ship that achieves that kind of improvement for 5% of its point cost?

Think a naked Raider is better than a naked Hawk? I'd wager that Kyle could give out a lot more focus tokens and survive longer than the Raider and stand a better chance at winning the game because of it. Why? Because the Hawk will have 79 extra points worth of ships to protect it from the fighters that will easily arc dodge it. It could earn back its point value by supporting other ships and extending their lifespans on the table. Once the enemy pulls a couple straight 4s and moves out of the Raider's forward arc, it's a 100 point asteroid that can give out free actions.

Critical effects are global to the ship. Besides, someone's not reading all the cards. Look at the CR90. Grid Overload. Makes you lose all energy on the aft card.

Only the aft section can gain energy. That's even in the rulebooks. The ship's fore card and upgrade cards can spend that energy, but only the aft can accumulate it.

My point is that relying on implied meanings of cards is a poor way to judge the way that a ship is supposed to behave in absence of stated rules. Thanks for reinforcing that point.

It's also not expressly forbidden to fire the fore hardpoints from the aft. Furthermore, all your points can be used to support firing fore hardpoints from the back.

The secondary weapons are assigned to specific sections of the ship. There are icons on each card for those weapons. The rules state that 'that secondary weapon must target a ship inside either firing arc from its corresponding section' (emphasis mine). The secondary weapon has a physical location on the ship because the player assigns it. That location is the corresponding section of which the CR90 has 2 in each.

The term corresponding takes any ambiguity out of the matter because it links the weapon to one section.

Despite going into detail for both this and turreted weapons, there is NO indication that the primary weapon is limited to the forward arc. Why go through the trouble of going into these details, and including specific Raider details in the Raider instruction manual, and NOT include an explanation for this new arc system? Even the Firespray got a mention on how the rear firing arc differed from other firing arcs.

There's no mentioned difference listed in the rules that applies to this model. All listed above are merely implied and go against the fact that, save for 1 ship, every firing arc in the game is used to fire primary weapons for ships that don't have turrets as primary weapons.

The Raider would be the first ship to deviate from this pattern. There's no way that would be glossed over without a dedicated paragraph in the Raider manual. Your interpretation goes against every past practice that FFG has used in the game when it comes to noting changes from the core rules regarding firing. All three arcs share the same coloration as those that allow both primary and secondary weapons to fire from them.

The diagram of the 'sweet spot' doesn't contain a key denoting that the green area is for secondary weapons only. It only shows that there's an area where the arcs overlap. Indeed it points more towards the secondary weapons being confined to their own sections of the ship. Otherwise, the sweet spot would truely be redundant because all secondary weapons could just fire forward. It doesn't give any weight for or against the Raider being able to fire from the sides.

So once again, all the rules even related to this matter are exclusionary to normal primary weapons in their wording. There's no other instance besides the CR90 in the game of a firing arc being able to deliver secondary weapons but not primary weapons unless there's turrets involved. The CR90 was identified by name in the Huge Rule book with turret and secondary weapons rules being applied to its unique circumstance.

Shoehorning rules from other weapons into areas where they don't apply does not constitute evidence for your argument. Until there's something concrete put out by FFG, their past actions and the stated rules point to shooting from the flanks of the ship.

In a section covering turret weapons. It's well known that turrets have separate rules from primary weapons. There is no symbol on one base or another to give the impression that one should be favored over the other. There is no visual evidence on the Raider itself that there is a weapon point on the front that is not also on the back. There is nothing to directly correspond with one base over the other.

Turrets have one additional rule: that they can fire outside their firing arc. That ability is denoted by a red ring around the attack value. Beyond that they are identical to arced primaries. If we're following the non-Epic game, then the Raider's loss of the turret symbol prevents it from firing outside its arc.

The CR90 is not restricted to the front because it is a turret. It is restricted to the front because it is part of the fore.

Despite going into detail for both this and turreted weapons, there is NO indication that the primary weapon is limited to the forward arc.

Nor is there on the CR90, save being on the fore card. The red ring on its baseplate is stated by the rules to be a reminder, not a rules symbol.

If there is nothing to state that the Raider's primary does not correspond to the fore, then there is also nothing to state that the CR90's corresponds to the fore: the only difference between them is that the CR90 has a red ring around its attack value. Therefore, if the Raider can fire from the back, the CR90 can fire from the back, no?

The secondary weapons are assigned to specific sections of the ship. There are icons on each card for those weapons. The rules state that 'that secondary weapon must target a ship inside either firing arc from its corresponding section' (emphasis mine).

Go back and quote that rule properly. It specifies the CR90. Nothing stopping a fore hardpoint from firing from the back on the Raider if weapons can fire from sections other than the one they correspond to.

By viable I mean that it could be expected to contribute to the game at least a significant portion of its point value, not be a game winner. A naked Hawk could still take a high PS pilot and act as a support.

A HWK in its most basic state is a Rebel Operative or Spice Runner. Sorry, but if you put upgrading the pilot as a requirement then you're not catering to the naked HWK playstyle.

Raiders are meant to be upgraded, just like HWKs.

My point is that relying on implied meanings of cards is a poor way to judge the way that a ship is supposed to behave in absence of stated rules. Thanks for reinforcing that point.

In the absence of stated rules you follow precedent from ships that use the same mechanics, the only other dual card being the CR90, where the primary corresponds to the fore and fires from the fore. The CR90's primary and the Raider's primary differ in only one respect: the CR90's has a symbol that allows it to fire outside its firing arc. That symbol does not denote which base it corresponds to, therefore the only way to know which base a weapon corresponds to is which card it is on.

The Raider would be the first ship to deviate from this pattern. There's no way that would be glossed over without a dedicated paragraph in the Raider manual. Your interpretation goes against every past practice that FFG has used in the game when it comes to noting changes from the core rules regarding firing. All three arcs share the same coloration as those that allow both primary and secondary weapons to fire from them.

The core rules state a ship fires from its firing arc. Singular. Whenever a ship has multiple arcs, they are clarified. Every. Single. Time.

Firespray? Check. Hound's Tooth? Check. CR90? Check. Raider aft secondary weapons? Check.

Why, when the rules specify that the aft guns may fire from either aft arc, do they not specify that the primary can fire from any of the three arcs? Because it can't. It fires only from it's corresponding section. That has a single firing arc and, like the fore hardpoints, does not require such multiple arc clarification.

The only deviation from established rules is this silly notion that the Raider can fire from the back, when in every single other case involving a huge ship they fire from their corresponding section only.

The diagram of the 'sweet spot' doesn't contain a key denoting that the green area is for secondary weapons only. It only shows that there's an area where the arcs overlap. Indeed it points more towards the secondary weapons being confined to their own sections of the ship. Otherwise, the sweet spot would truely be redundant because all secondary weapons could just fire forward. It doesn't give any weight for or against the Raider being able to fire from the sides.

It shows the fore ship card assigned to the fore arc.

If there is nothing to state that the Raider's primary does not correspond to the fore, then there is also nothing to state that the CR90's corresponds to the fore: the only difference between them is that the CR90 has a red ring around its attack value. Therefore, the CR90 can fire from the back, no?

That's not true. Here is what the tantive rules say (from the actually paper copy, not the generic huge ship rules online):

When the CR90 attacks with its turret primary weapon, it may target an enemy ship inside or outside its firing arc, and it measures range from the fore section's base.

When the CR90 targets a ship outside of the CR90's firing arc, measure a line from the exact center of the chosen ship's base to the exact center of the CR90's fore section's base. If this line is not obstructed by the blue center line on the CR90's ship token, the CR90 can declare the chosen ship as the defender

So it doesn't actually say that the attack is limited to its corresponding section. It creates a requirement though that effectively limits the attack to the fore section.

Read the Huge Ship rules pdf, available on the catalogue page and linked a few times. These rules are meant to be a complete reference and provide all information needed to play the GR-75 and CR90 (and when they finally update them, the Raider-class Corvette). That, because it's generalised, says "corresponding section." This means that a primary weapon (or a primary weapon turret at least) corresponds to a section.

The only indicator as to which section it corresponds to is the card it's on. The Raider and CR90's primary weapons differ in only one respect: the CR90 has a turret symbol. This, whereever it appears, means that the ship can fire its primary weapon from outside its firing arc.

The Raider's primary lacks this symbol, meaning it cannot fire outside of its firing arc. However, it still corresponds to the fore base and fires from the firing arc of the fore base.

Also worth note is that whenever a ship has multiple arcs (Firespray, YV-666, CR90, Raider Aft Section) FFG clarifies that it may shoot from either. It has a section specifically clarifying that the Raider's aft hardpoints may fire from either aft arc. It's not clarifying section specific firing here, just multiple arcs (if it were clarifying section specific firing it would mention the fore hardpoints only fire from the fore arc. It does not). If the Raider's primary could shoot from three separate arcs, they would have clarified it in this section.

Blue, come on man.

I can't speak for anyone else, but since you're basically posting the same information repeatedly, seeming to expect a different answer, let me assure you that I UNDERSTAND your argument. I grasp it. I comprehend it. I grok it.

I do not, however, agree with it.

Writing it again won't change that.

I understand that you've turned the argument on its head, trying to address the secondary firing rules, but the issue is that the INTENT of the secondary firing rules are clear. The INTENT of the primary firing rules is not. The SPECIFICS are ambiguous, leaving all interpretation in the realm of being, at best, likely but not certain.

This is the problem we face, and neither one of us are going to bridge this gulf without official word which may or may not be forthcoming, since FFG continues to remain silent for me at least.

The intent of the secondary firing rules is clear, and the intent on the primary rules is equally clear: primaries fire from their section. Once you start saying "oh the CR90's primary rules only talk about turrets" then you've moved out of clear intent and towards Rules as Written. The CR90 rules don't address non-turret primaries because the CR90 doesn't have one, but the turret part is measuring at any point inside or outside of arc from the weapon's corresponding section. Again, corresponding section. An explicit statement that the primary weapon of the CR90 is part of the fore, and the Raider's main gun is set up in exactly the same way, just missing the red ring around the attack value that lets it fire outside of its firing arc.

That the CR90's primary would be section restricted and the Raider's would not is nonsensical, and if it were a universal weapon defying the CR90's precedent they'd not have neglected to mention it entirely.

No, it isn't.

The CR90's fore turret is tied to the big turret mounted on the fore of the ship.

The Raider's primary is an aggregate representation of six independent double blaster cannon turrets positioned over the entire length of the ship, easily able to direct massive quantities of fire in a broad arc, particularly considering that two of the six cannons in question are positioned on *GASP* the aft section of the ship.

If you could really, honestly ONLY tell that the CR-90's turret is mounted on the fore because of the colors on the card, I have to ask... do you only play using bases? It couldn't be more obvious on the model apart from painting the turret neon orange.

It would make perfectly good sense to have the Raider be able to fire essentially everywhere but backward, it would make no sense at all to have the big, singular, central turret fire from the aft section.

Again, I'm glad you have a window into the minds of the FFG employees who wrote this, because aside from that there is no way to be certain what they meant.

The CR90's fore turret is tied to the big turret mounted on the fore of the ship.

The Raider's primary is an aggregate representation of six independent double blaster cannon turrets positioned over the entire length of the ship, easily able to direct massive quantities of fire in a broad arc, particularly considering that two of the six cannons in question are positioned on *GASP* the aft section of the ship.

If you could really, honestly ONLY tell that the CR-90's turret is mounted on the fore because of the colors on the card, I have to ask... do you only play using bases? It couldn't be more obvious on the model apart from painting the turret neon orange.

The models have no mechanical bearing. There is also no reason lorewise why the CR90's main gun is incapable of firing backwards (it does such in the opening sequence of the first film) and even if we cited hiding behind the engines as a reason the blue line limitation limits its arc far beyond the obstructions of the model. It has no weapon mountings modelled on the back at all, yet can fire from there.

The only thing in the ruleset that defines which section a primary corresponds to is the ship card it is part of. Otherwise it would not be possible to play the CR90 without ambiguity using the Huge Ship Rules pdf on the FFG website.

But if you're asking what the primary weapon is, I'd say it's the front two guns. If the primary is all of the pop-up turrets, what are the hardpoints?

Again, I'm glad you have a window into the minds of the FFG employees who wrote this, because aside from that there is no way to be certain what they meant.

Certainty? No. But it's very easy to deduce from simple precedent. You're simply allowing your dissatisfaction with the Raider (which for some reason you're running with no upgrades) to colour things.

EDIT: Anyway, time to end this thread. This thread got a little heated on both sides and I apologise now for the stridence of my posts.

You guys are adorkable. With your feisty words and all. Rawr!

I may have missed them, but I'm still waiting for the BINGO to be called.. I just need the phrases "straw man" and "ad hominem" to be used, then I'll have a full card.

Alas, thread concluded. The good ship FFG Support has made port and unloaded its cargo of clarity.

Try one of the Sportsmanship threads. They'll probably get you your last two words, or at least some examples of them.

Glad to see FFG decided to respond to at least one of the rules questions on this.

EDIT: Leaving it at that. Thanks for getting the answer Blue Five.

Let's just hope that this email makes it into a rulebook or a FAQ.