I had a game today where I was using Kavil with a Twin Laser Turret. My opponent questioned me about Kavil's ability when using the TLT. His logic was that the turret had a 360° firing arc and therefore Kavil's ability did not apply.

Now I know that there's no such thing as a 360° firing arc, and I tried to explain that to my opponent, and stated that the TLT card says I could target ships outside my firing arc, meaning anything around Kavil but his printed arc was still his normal firing arc. He argued that that was for the primary weapon only. I argued that his ability would be completely redundant if you didn't equip a turret weapon. He wanted me to show him in the rules where it stated that a secondary turret weapon had a firing arc that wasn't 360°.

I can see his side of the argument and where he's coming from, and I know how firing arcs work, but for the life of me, do you think I could find something tangible enough in the rulebook to make him understand how they work? He finally decided to allow me to use Kavil correctly, but I could tell he didn't believe me.

Has anyone had a similar experience and had to try and explain something like firing arcs that the rulebook or FAQ doesn't quite cover adequately enough? And how did you explain it?

The Firing Arc is Printed on the Base.

You can shoot outside that arc with a Turret., but that doesn't make it an Arc.

If its not printed, its not an Arc.

Full Stop.

That's why the YV counts with its 180, and why Firesprays have the Buttarc...

They're Printed.

So your opponent thinks FFG gave Kavil an ability that doesn't work? How would he ever fire outside of his printed arc when using his primary?

Rules reference pg 11:

• A ship’s primary firing arc is used for all attacks,
including secondary weapon attacks, unless
specified otherwise.

TLT card:

Attack: Perform this
attack twice (even
against a ship outside
your firing arc).

The turret doesn't give you a 360 degree arc. It lets you shoot outside of your arc.

You could try showing him the part under Turret Primary Weapon on page 19 of the rules reference.

• A ship with a turret primary weapon still has a
printed firing arc that is not 360º.

Where does it state that a turret has a 360 degree "arc" to shoot in. It clearly states it can be used to attack ships outside of the ship's firing arc. No point in saying that if it already had a 360 degree arc.

Although I doubt this was the case I really wish he would be flying with Autothrusters and said something like that. While it hurt Kavil just think about what it would mean to the Stress mech and any other "in arc only" things that could be used. Somehow I think he may be singing a different tune if actually having a 360 degree arc with a turret was actually BAD for him instead of being a weasel when it's just bad for you.

The Firing Arc is Printed on the Base.

You can shoot outside that arc with a Turret., but that doesn't make it an Arc.

If its not printed, its not an Arc.

Full Stop.

That's why the YV counts with its 180, and why Firesprays have the Buttarc...

They're Printed.

To which his reply was so you can shoot all around, which is 360°. Even after I explained that being able to shoot outside is not a firing arc

So your opponent thinks FFG gave Kavil an ability that doesn't work? How would he ever fire outside of his printed arc when using his primary?

Rules reference pg 11:

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

including secondary weapon attacks, unless

specified otherwise.

TLT card:

Attack: Perform this

attack twice (even

against a ship outside

your firing arc).

The turret doesn't give you a 360 degree arc. It lets you shoot outside of your arc.

You could try showing him the part under Turret Primary Weapon on page 19 of the rules reference.

• A ship with a turret primary weapon still has a

printed firing arc that is not 360º.

Yep, I showed him page 11 and I showed him the TLT card text. Still couldn't make him understand. I showed him the turret primary weapon section, but he simply replied "that's a turret primary weapon." I explained even the Falcon which has a turret primary weapon has a printed firing arc. Still couldn't make him understand. He was a bit lost for an explanation when I asked why would Kavil have an ability that relied on an equipped turret weapon if that weapon made his firing arc 360°.

Where does it state that a turret has a 360 degree "arc" to shoot in. It clearly states it can be used to attack ships outside of the ship's firing arc. No point in saying that if it already had a 360 degree arc.

Although I doubt this was the case I really wish he would be flying with Autothrusters and said something like that. While it hurt Kavil just think about what it would mean to the Stress mech and any other "in arc only" things that could be used. Somehow I think he may be singing a different tune if actually having a 360 degree arc with a turret was actually BAD for him instead of being a weasel when it's just bad for you.

I even tried that line of reasoning as well. He wasn't being a weasel at all, he's just inexperienced at the game. He was applying wargamer's logic to X-wing and sometimes the two just don't mix. In any other game, if you give something a turret, you generally give it a 360° firing arc. I've found X-wing to be the only game where it maintains a set firing arc and has abilities that allow you to shoot outside that arc. He was even using a TIE Fighter with Outmaneuver, so I tried explaining that if he shot at Kavil from the side or rear, he would be outside my arc and thus reduce Kavil's agility, because the turret didn't change the firing arc from the printed arc on the base.

My biggest problem was trying to show him where the actual definition was.

Sometimes, people have the comprehension level of a baked potato and there isn't a **** thing you can do about it. I admire your perseverance.

Sometimes, people have the comprehension level of a baked potato and there isn't a **** thing you can do about it. I admire your perseverance.

No, it's not that at all. This guy has been gaming for decades. It's fighting against 30+ years of quite logical thinking because X-wing does it differently. His argument was: once you equip a turret, does that not give the ship a capability to fire 360°, and thus a 360° firing arc?

To counter that, try explaining that it does give it 360° firing capability, but that it's not a 360° firing arc. From an outsider's perspective, it doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

Sometimes, people have the comprehension level of a baked potato and there isn't a **** thing you can do about it. I admire your perseverance.

No, it's not that at all. This guy has been gaming for decades. It's fighting against 30+ years of quite logical thinking because X-wing does it differently. His argument was: once you equip a turret, does that not give the ship a capability to fire 360°, and thus a 360° firing arc?

To counter that, try explaining that it does give it 360° firing capability, but that it's not a 360° firing arc. From an outsider's perspective, it doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

Well, 30 years of gaming also equates to 30 years of rule lawyering, powergaming and loophole-finding. We may not like it, but many of us tabletop gamers are just one unfortunate FAQ ruling away from a nervous breakdown.

Trust me, this wasn't a case of rules lawyering or loop holing. This was just a guy trying to make sense of one of X-wing's more confusing concepts.

Trust me, this wasn't a case of rules lawyering or loop holing. This was just a guy trying to make sense of one of X-wing's more confusing concepts.

I know. When I got into the game, this was one of the first questions that occurred to me, too.

Trust me, this wasn't a case of rules lawyering or loop holing. This was just a guy trying to make sense of one of X-wing's more confusing concepts.

But I disagree that it's a confusing concept. Ships have a printed firing arc; that's made clear in the rules. Some weapons can shoot outside that arc; again, clear in the rules. People saying that makes them have a 360 arc are doing the "cardinal sin" of not doing what the rules/card say to do and imposing external factors.

If this guy has that much experience of wargaming he should be able to read a rulebook and interpret it without making assumptions based on other games. You showed him the rule that defines a firing arc, and you showed him the rule that says a turret can shoot outside that arc. If he still doesn't get it then I don't know what to suggest. Honestly, I'm feeling frustrated with him just reading this account. Grrr.

Sounds like he needs a slap across the face with the rulebook.

Boy, some of you guys are harsh! FFG has some odd ways of stating things. This is my first "miniature" game though I have been gaming for 50+ years and I have to agree with Parravon that FFG does do things differently. Some of the verbiage used implies actions or abilities that don't exist. It takes a little getting use to when reading their rules and cards.

Thanks Stoneface, and there's also the fact that there is a rulebook and the majority of the card abilities are exceptions to the rules.

It's very easy to apply knowledge of other games or circumstances to this game when the situation is similar.

I'm just trying to find out if anyone else has had to try and explain this sort of situation to a newer player and how they've done it.

Sometimes, people have the comprehension level of a baked potato and there isn't a **** thing you can do about it. I admire your perseverance.

I shouldn't like this - but I do - sorry

OK. So it sounds like he was arguing against the correct interpretation of the rules because it was for your advantage. That put him on the defensive thinking he's been taken advantage of. Turn it around. Ask him to play a ship with autothrusters. See if he gets it when the rules about firing outside of your arc work for him instead of against him.

Could the FAQ entries on Backstabber and Outmaneuver help in clarifying this, as they also elaborate on what counts as a firing arc and what doesn't?

From what I've read, over and over, there are no assumptions about what's what in this game. Do what the cards say, not what they don't, check the rules reference, and than the Faq. They cleary define the rules, or they sometimes dont. If there's no clear answer, than both of you can agree upon a compromise and go with that until shown otherwise.

Could the FAQ entries on Backstabber and Outmaneuver help in clarifying this, as they also elaborate on what counts as a firing arc and what doesn't?

That's the thing, I tried to use those as an example, but as far as he was concerned, Kavil's TLT made them both redundant even though I said they could still apply. And he had a pilot equipped with Outmaneuver.

It seemed any reference to a firing arc, he assumed was overruled by the turret's ability to fire 360°. As much as I tried, I could not convince him that there was no such thing as a 360° firing arc within the game.

Do the game rules ever even refer to a 360 degree firing arc? You have "make attacks outside of your arc" but that MUST imply that there is an arc to attack out of.

Do the game rules ever even refer to a 360 degree firing arc? You have "make attacks outside of your arc" but that MUST imply that there is an arc to attack out of.

It does more than imply. It clearly states it and defines the firing arc. His counter argument was that the firing arc was for primary weapons, and I was using a secondary turret weapon. I said it still had a firing arc, but that it could fire outside that arc. His reply: "making it 360°, right?"

Honestly, he wasn't trying to be obtuse about it, but we just kept going round in circles with the argument for about 5 minutes straight, and I just couldn't convince him.

Maybe he wasn't trying to be obtuse about it but he still was.

He asks you to show it one thing yet he he can not show you what he believes the rule to be. He may find something that can be twisted into what he wants it to say but as you know we say "do what you're told and not what you think" when it comes to effects in this game. I don't believe there is anything about a 360 degree firing arc anywhere in the rules or the FAQ for that matter.

Thanks Stoneface, and there's also the fact that there is a rulebook and the majority of the card abilities are exceptions to the rules.

It's very easy to apply knowledge of other games or circumstances to this game when the situation is similar.

I'm just trying to find out if anyone else has had to try and explain this sort of situation to a newer player and how they've done it.

Actually you and others had to explain, or correct my thinking on how the "Backup Shield Generator" works for huge ships. This goes back almost a year. I'm thankful you and the others had more patience than some of the contributors here.

When you read and compare the Recover Action to the Backup Shield Generator card and the last words in parentheses is where my confusion began. Recover has you spend ALL of your energy to recover shields up to your shield value. Six energy for 2 shields is not a bargain. BUT the BSG card states one energy for one shield up to your shield value. Those last few words inject a crap load of confusion! It implies, to me at least, that you can get shields back on a one-for-one exchange with energy. Two energy spent, two shields recovered until you reach your shield limit. Had the card simply stated that you could spend one energy to recover one shield I never would have had a question about the card.

There's something else to consider. The old saying about "Familiarity Breeds Contempt" can apply. If you work with something long enough, like a new ship or upgrade, you may know how you want it to work but be completely oblivious to some vagaries when it's read or used by a new player. The wording that causes the confusion COULD slip past the play testers because of their familiarity with the game.

Don't assume that someone is trying to slide something past you because they challenge what you know to be true. Common language usage doesn't always carry over into this game.

Thanks Stoneface, and there's also the fact that there is a rulebook and the majority of the card abilities are exceptions to the rules.

It's very easy to apply knowledge of other games or circumstances to this game when the situation is similar.

I'm just trying to find out if anyone else has had to try and explain this sort of situation to a newer player and how they've done it.

There's something else to consider. The old saying about "Familiarity Breeds Contempt" can apply. If you work with something long enough, like a new ship or upgrade, you may know how you want it to work but be completely oblivious to some vagaries when it's read or used by a new player. The wording that causes the confusion COULD slip past the play testers because of their familiarity with the game.

Don't assume that someone is trying to slide something past you because they challenge what you know to be true. Common language usage doesn't always carry over into this game.

This is so true and even applies to me. I've been writing wargame rules for over twenty years now, and I know exactly how I want a process to happen, but it's not until I get a complete newbie to read the relevant sections and try and interpret them do the anomalies start to appear.

I feel somewhat frustrated with FFG and their inconsistencies in the text on various cards and within the rules. It's also led to more confusion than was warranted on more than one occasion. And once we understand what they were trying to convey, we're all fine with it, but trying to explain it to newer players can become somewhat challenging, especially when the language used doesn't quite map to their concept.