The firing arc as defined by the rules reference:

FIRING ARC

A ship’s primary firing arc is the area formed by

extending the firing arc lines printed on the front of

the ship’s token. A firing arc extends across the play

area. A ship is inside a firing arc if any part of its

base falls inside the area formed by extending the

firing-arc lines.

• A ship’s primary firing arc is used for all attacks,

including secondary weapon attacks, unless

specified otherwise.

• A ship’s auxiliary firing arc cannot be used for

secondary weapon attacks.

Even secondary weapons use the primary firing arc so for the purpose of firing arc and TLT or dorsal turret, the primary firing arc is the firing arc for the weapon.

Q: If a ship has a turret primary weapon (or is equipped with

a secondary weapon), is the ship considered to have a

360-degree firing arc?

A: No. Turret primary and secondary weapons allow a ship to ignore its

printed firing arcs. A ship’s firing arcs are always the printed, shaded arcs

on its ship token.

Haven't you answered you're own question. Quote that you provided "A ships's firing arcs are always the printed, shaded arcs on its ship token"

The secondary firing arc is by the definition you gave a ship's firing arc. Unless you have something in the rules that says when it isn't an arc then it is.

The other rules say you can fire a torpedo from that arc. But nothing about it not being an arc.

Using your own logic and example it is an arc.

I think the kind of gymnastics rules-wise it would take for the rear arc of this ship not to be a firing arc would be incredible. I'm inclined to say it's an arc, even when you're not firing torpedoes(and the notion of "it's an arc only when you have torpedoes equipped" is silly).

For what its worth, I do agree it is a firing arc for the purpose of tactician and autothrusters at the moment.

I do not think it should be unless you equip torpedoes or ghost title but that's my opinion.

We are playing it as a firing arc currently regardless of upgrades on the vcx. I'm not going against any rules as I stated we are following this but all the other arc rules were based on shooting out of the active firing arc.

I can see how this can stay how it is right now due to the fact that outmaneuver is denied by the rear arc of the firespray even though you aren't attacking with it. The logic of the rear arc on the ghost is just....weird due to the fact that there is a circumstance where you CANNOT fire out of it at all unlike the firespray. There is no case where you cannot fire out of the firespray rear arc but there is a case where you cannot fire out of the rear arc of the vcx.

It is a special firing arc and not an auxilary ark like the Firespray or YV-666. It can only be used for torpedoes when making attacks.

Now if making attacks with turrets /or torpedoes I think the special firing arc still counts as a firing arc for things concerning Tactician After all you can use tactician on a PWT and if it is in range 2 at arc as mentioned on page 4 of the FAQ as inside arc at range x. I don't see why the special arc would be excluded..

The big question that needs to be in the FAQ is does it still count as a firing arc without the phantom docked and when there are no torpedoes for abilities such as backstabber or upgrades like outmaneuver. For that I can't find any ruling in the latest FAQ or in the rule supplement pamphlet that comes with the ghost. The simplest ruling would be to treat it like you would with the firespray where the auxiliary firing arc while not the standard firing arc still counts as a firing arc. So you could apply the same ruling for the special firing arc.

So even though special firing arcs are not the same as auxiliary firing arcs they still are firing arcs so until FFG says otherwise treat them as firing arcs that you just can't make an primary attacks unless phantom is docked.

The phantom upgrade cards states you can make primary attacks out the rear arc when docked.... not just torps.... unless no ship is docked then it is lonly torps.

My understanding is that if it doesn't have a shuttle docked it doesn't get the extra arc, but if it does get the arc it can also use it for torpedoes.

It is a special firing arc and not an auxilary ark like the Firespray or YV-666. It can only be used for torpedoes when making attacks.

Now if making attacks with turrets /or torpedoes I think the special firing arc still counts as a firing arc for things concerning Tactician After all you can use tactician on a PWT and if it is in range 2 at arc as mentioned on page 4 of the FAQ as inside arc at range x. I don't see why the special arc would be excluded..

The big question that needs to be in the FAQ is does it still count as a firing arc without the phantom docked and when there are no torpedoes for abilities such as backstabber or upgrades like outmaneuver. For that I can't find any ruling in the latest FAQ or in the rule supplement pamphlet that comes with the ghost. The simplest ruling would be to treat it like you would with the firespray where the auxiliary firing arc while not the standard firing arc still counts as a firing arc. So you could apply the same ruling for the special firing arc.

So even though special firing arcs are not the same as auxiliary firing arcs they still are firing arcs so until FFG says otherwise treat them as firing arcs that you just can't make an primary attacks unless phantom is docked.

The phantom upgrade cards states you can make primary attacks out the rear arc when docked.... not just torps.... unless no ship is docked then it is lonly torps.

My understanding is that if it doesn't have a shuttle docked it doesn't get the extra arc, but if it does get the arc it can also use it for torpedoes.

The rules insert that comes with the ghost specifies that you can always fire torpedoes out of the rear arc. The phantom just adds the ability to fire your primary out the rear arc as well.

The logic of the rear arc on the ghost is just....weird due to the fact that there is a circumstance where you CANNOT fire out of it at all unlike the firespray.

There's times you cannot fire out the aux arc of the Firespray, such as there being no ships in that arc. So being able to fire out of it, or not has no bearing on the rules.

The weird thing would be if it was considered an arc only as long as you had one or more torpedos upgrades equipped. Because again, based on your logic it stops being an arc after you shoot a torpedo.

To keep things simple, FFG has ruled that an arc is an arc, is an arc. The printed arc is all that matters, that's why Backstabber never gets to use his special ability against the GR-75, since it doesn't have a printed arc, nothing can ever be outside of it.

The printed arc is all that matters, that's why Backstabber never gets to use his special ability against the GR-75, since it doesn't have a printed arc, nothing can ever be outside of it.

Yes that is true

It is a special firing arc and not an auxilary ark like the Firespray or YV-666. It can only be used for torpedoes when making attacks.

Now if making attacks with turrets /or torpedoes I think the special firing arc still counts as a firing arc for things concerning Tactician After all you can use tactician on a PWT and if it is in range 2 at arc as mentioned on page 4 of the FAQ as inside arc at range x. I don't see why the special arc would be excluded..

The big question that needs to be in the FAQ is does it still count as a firing arc without the phantom docked and when there are no torpedoes for abilities such as backstabber or upgrades like outmaneuver. For that I can't find any ruling in the latest FAQ or in the rule supplement pamphlet that comes with the ghost. The simplest ruling would be to treat it like you would with the firespray where the auxiliary firing arc while not the standard firing arc still counts as a firing arc. So you could apply the same ruling for the special firing arc.

So even though special firing arcs are not the same as auxiliary firing arcs they still are firing arcs so until FFG says otherwise treat them as firing arcs that you just can't make a primary attacks unless phantom is docked.

The phantom upgrade cards states you can make primary attacks out the rear arc when docked.... not just torps.... unless no ship is docked then it is lonly torps.

Y U NO READ?

@YNot

If we think about this issue in "real life space craft" terms, and not as game rules, it begins to make sense (sort of).

A space craft that is built to fire torpedos behind it will have a weapon's guidance / targetting system focused out the rear of the ship. The weapon's guidance system is always there, always capable of locking onto a ship or providing information about the enemy ship's location, it just won't always have ammunition (torpedos) to fire when locked on / in use. To model this in the game, there is a rear arc printed that is always there, just not always able to fire.

(Strangely, this means a Ghost equipped with TLT/Dorsal Turret and Tactician might be able to apply stress on ships that are in arc behind it when firing with TLT and not having a docked Phantom. Also means TLT fired at a ship that happens to be located in the rear arc at range 2 will not be able to use Autothrusters, haha.)

The only difference when the Phantom is docked is that the Phantom (I'm guessing) would be using the Ghost's t argetting system to fire its gun. Or actually, that the pilot of the Ghost has tethered the Phantom's weapon to the Ghost's rear arc weapons system and is able to use the Phantom's gun instead of torpedos.

@YNot

If we think about this issue in "real life space craft" terms, and not as game rules, it begins to make sense (sort of).

A space craft that is built to fire torpedos behind it will have a weapon's guidance / targetting system focused out the rear of the ship. The weapon's guidance system is always there, always capable of locking onto a ship or providing information about the enemy ship's location, it just won't always have ammunition (torpedos) to fire when locked on / in use. To model this in the game, there is a rear arc printed that is always there, just not always able to fire.

(Strangely, this means a Ghost equipped with TLT/Dorsal Turret and Tactician might be able to apply stress on ships that are in arc behind it when firing with TLT and not having a docked Phantom. Also means TLT fired at a ship that happens to be located in the rear arc at range 2 will not be able to use Autothrusters, haha.)

The only difference when the Phantom is docked is that the Phantom (I'm guessing) would be using the Ghost's t argetting system to fire its gun. Or actually, that the pilot of the Ghost has tethered the Phantom's weapon to the Ghost's rear arc weapons system and is able to use the Phantom's gun instead of torpedos.

I completely understand how it works but I think the "spirit of the law" with tactician and autothrusters has to do with the arcs of the weapons in question( or at least it should IMHO). All weapons use the primary arc as an arc. This ship is the only one where you have another firing arc that can be used by secondary weapons or with a special upgrade card. Up to this point, all other ships when attacking were attacking with a weapon that used the primary arc for secondary weapons.

My issue is that when attacking with a TLT, your firing arc is the primary firing arc - there is no question about this as the rules state. If your firing arc is the primary one, then it is difficult for me to accept that the rear unused/disabled arc can be used for tactician or to deny autothrusters.

For me it is a "spirit of the law" vs "letter of the law" issue. The letter of the law states that it IS a firing arc for all intents and purposes. I believe the spirit of the law is that the firing arc that is referenced by these things is the firing arc of the current weapon you are firing.

If you want to argue spirit of the law though, why does Tactician do what it does at all? How do good tactics equate to a stressed enemy when you shoot at them?

Not to mention the whole point about having the ability to shoot, even if you're not using it, meaning that your targetting systems are active in that direction etc.

Really, it's dead easy to find a flavour reason for a given mechanic to work if you accept that it does, and it's dead easy to provide a flavour reason why it shouldn't, if you think it doesn't. The only real question, IMO, therefore should be whether the rules as they are written are balanced and consistent.

That's the only thing that really matters, flavour justifications are basically irrelevant because they're easy to make up. Rules aren't.

(I think the rules are clear, and the interactions of the special arc with things that reference arcs in the generic are similarly clear, though whether they're balanced is anyone's guess. Probably, given the cost of the thing.)

I believe the spirit of the law is that the firing arc that is referenced by these things is the firing arc of the current weapon you are firing.

The issue is then, how do you explain the GR-75? It has no printed arc because it has no weapon. So you can never be outside it's printed arc.

Backstabber for example, can never get an extra die when shooting at a GR-75 because he can never be outside it's printed arc. If the 'spirit of the law had anything to do with the current weapon being fired, then the GR-75 should always treat everything as being outside it's arc. Since it has no weapons to fire.

Q: Is Backstabber outside the firing arc of a ship that has no printed firing arc?

A: No, Backstabber’s pilot ability only triggers against ships that have a printed firing arc.

I believe the spirit of the law is that the firing arc that is referenced by these things is the firing arc of the current weapon you are firing.

The issue is then, how do you explain the GR-75? It has no printed arc because it has no weapon. So you can never be outside it's printed arc.

Backstabber for example, can never get an extra die when shooting at a GR-75 because he can never be outside it's printed arc. If the 'spirit of the law had anything to do with the current weapon being fired, then the GR-75 should always treat everything as being outside it's arc. Since it has no weapons to fire.

Q: Is Backstabber outside the firing arc of a ship that has no printed firing arc?

A: No, Backstabber’s pilot ability only triggers against ships that have a printed firing arc.

backstabber is fine when it comes to the gr-75.

it has no weapons and no arc - this is quite fine

I just feel the "any printed arc" statement is far too broad in the context of the vcx we have now.

I'm not sure there really is an "easy" way to write a rule that wouldn't be too confusing while keeping the spirit of firing arcs of the current weapon in context.

while keeping the spirit of firing arcs of the current weapon in context.

But that's the whole point. The spirit of the rules don't work like you think they should.

If the GR-75 can't be out of arc when it has no weapons. How can you say that a printed arc that doesn't happen to have a weapon at that time should be treated differently?

while keeping the spirit of firing arcs of the current weapon in context.

But that's the whole point. The spirit of the rules don't work like you think they should.

If the GR-75 can't be out of arc when it has no weapons. How can you say that a printed arc that doesn't happen to have a weapon at that time should be treated differently?

I know they don't. You can't go by the spirit of the rules at all. You can only go by what is written but that doesn't mean it can't change.

Your gr-75 example doesn't apply at all. The tlt DOES have a firing arc - the primary arc. The primary weapon has an arc as well - the primary arc.

while keeping the spirit of firing arcs of the current weapon in context.

But that's the whole point. The spirit of the rules don't work like you think they should.

If the GR-75 can't be out of arc when it has no weapons. How can you say that a printed arc that doesn't happen to have a weapon at that time should be treated differently?

You can't be out of arc of a GR75 because it has no arcs, not because it has no weapons. The cases aren't remotely analogous, and the lack of weaponry is not the relevant point.

(not to mention that I think that Backstabber/GR75 ruling is dumb, if something has no arcs by definition you're always out of its arcs, not always in them, but that's kind of a side note)

Your gr-75 example doesn't apply at all.

Exactly why doesn't it apply? Unless I completely misunderstand what you're trying to say, your issue with the special arc on the VCX is that it should only be considered an arc when there's a weapon that can use it. If it doesn't have a weapon that can be used it shouldn't be treated as an arc.

But if that was the same logic the dev's used, then the GR-75 which doesn't have a printed arc, should treat all attacks against it as being outside it's arc.

Unless you can come up with a reason why it should work like that in one case and not in another, I'm done discussing your opinion about it, since you agree your opinion doesn't really change anything.

The cases aren't remotely analogous, and the lack of weaponry is not the relevant point.

But isn't that the whole thing that Ynot is hanging his 'spirit of the rules' argument on? That the VCX arc shouldn't count as an arc if it doesn't have a weapon that can fire out of it.

I don't know, I've kind of lost track of who's arguing which side in this thread right now.

The cases aren't remotely analogous, and the lack of weaponry is not the relevant point.

But isn't that the whole thing that Ynot is hanging his 'spirit of the rules' argument on? That the VCX arc shouldn't count as an arc if it doesn't have a weapon that can fire out of it.

It has an arc though - this is the point you are missing I think. My argument is that the firing arc is there but it isn't the rear one for the weapons that are onboard.

I don't know, I've kind of lost track of who's arguing which side in this thread right now.

The fact that this argument is even happening I...

...yeah.

What about Outmaneuver? If somebody was in the rear arc of a VCX-100 or Firespray, would it get outmaneuver's effect?

What about Outmaneuver? If somebody was in the rear arc of a VCX-100 or Firespray, would it get outmaneuver's effect?

No, they are in arc. It's just not the primary arc.

K thanks.