One thing to try is to get the idea across that "Firing Arc" is a special, defined term in the game that does NOT follow common sense. You could even go so far as to replace the words "Firing Arc" with "Blerg". Every ship has a forward-facing Blerg. You are normally only allowed to fire at targets inside your Blerg. If you equip a turret upgrade, it allows you to fire at targets outside your Blerg.

By separating the in-game concept of "Blerg" from the real-world, common sense meaning of "Firing Arc", you might be able to get him to understand the rule better. I find that a lot of people get really hung up on what they *think* a word means, so you have to replace it with a totally different word to break that barrier.

Another example of this is "Touching". "Touching" in X-Wing means "Overlapped earlier this round and haven't yet moved apart." It doesn't actually mean what "touching" means in common English. Two ships can be "touching" without being "Touching". I use "Blerg" as part of my explanation of this problem, and people tend to take that well.

I think you should start with using some "NO" words.

No, the printed firing arc is not for primary weapons. It is. Just as it is. It is always there, even if you don't like it. It is printed there and is used for all purposes because it is printed. It is used for ALL weapons, including cannons AND turrets. No, it does not become 360 degrees. It ALLOWS you to shoot outside of your firing arc. but does NOT change the arc to 360. Effectively, Kavil fires all around himself, but his [printed] firing arc is still his [printed] firing arc (for all purposes).

Another example you could use: Dash with Outrider title (he cannot use his primary weapon but still, his firing arc is there, printed).

Maybe underline that fact from the rules: the firing arc is printed ? Whether a ship can or cannot use it, does not matter. It is printed, full stop.

EDIT: typos.

In our LGS we have a huge inflatable THUNDERHAMMER

every time anyone calls Ghost a Pancake (PWT) or starts using the 360' Arc

he gets hammered

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.

I think part of the problem is FFG moves designers in and out.

Seriously, I come from Magic: The Gathering and it was exactly like that when the game started. It feel like the 90's all over again when you look at the X-Wing rules.

A bunch of thing without proper design reflexion that just feeled cool when they made it.

And like when Magic introduced the stack, they now start to clean the ****... (New clearly defined combat step)

Don't try to defend the old rules, they seems ok to you because you started playing with them, but most of them are weird exception to themself. Seeing the number of question on the forum here is telling. There is nearly no ambiguity in modern Magic, because there is clear fixed template and because they release the FAQ with the new stuff right away. And they answer question really fast.

I don't like card game anymore, and X-Wing at the core is way better and fun to play then Magic, but every game designer could learn from Modern Magic.

The fact that x-wing has some confusing and poorly written rules, doesn't make this one one of them. This rule is unambiguous if you read the freaking card. You just have to be willing to accept that you're wrong, which the OP's friend clearly is not.

Honestly, he wasn't trying to be obtuse about it, but we just kept going round in circles with the argument

Honestly he was being obtuse about it even if he wasn't trying to. He refused to accept the Rules As Written, and was trying to play by the Rules As He Thinks They Should Be... which never works.

It's not even a matter of applying logic from another game, it's that he refused to accept the rules as written.

You have to assume FFG didn't want 360 degree firing arcs because they didn't want ships and/or weapons that ALWAYS had opponents in arc. That would pretty much obliterate a bunch of the design space around inside of and outside of firing arc effects.

You have to assume FFG didn't want 360 degree firing arcs because they didn't want ships and/or weapons that ALWAYS had opponents in arc.

The GR-75, because it has no printed fire arc can never have a ship outside it's firing arc. That was in one of the FAQ's or maybe the epic ship rules.

Edit: and the problem with Parravon's friend's argument is that there is nothing in the rules that actually changes the printed arc. Giving a ship a turret does not change its firing arc, and there's nothing in the rules that even hints at that.

In fact what the upgrade says, and should be enough to make it clear, is that a turret can fire outside it's printed fire arc, which should make it clear that the printed arc doesn't change.

Finally there's this from the FAQ on page 16.

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.

There's no way someone can read that and come away from it confused.

You have to assume FFG didn't want 360 degree firing arcs because they didn't want ships and/or weapons that ALWAYS had opponents in arc.

The GR-75, because it has no printed fire arc can never have a ship outside it's firing arc. That was in one of the FAQ's or maybe the epic ship rules.

FWIW I think that's a dumb ruling; it should be always outside arc, rather than never outside arc. It's an unarmed transport it makes perfect sense to me that Backstabber should be able to sneak up on it, and that's basically the only case that matters IIRC.

FWIW I think that's a dumb ruling;

Well it fits the text better. The check to see if something is outside your arc, not if it's inside your arc. If you don't have a printed arc you can't ever be outside of it.

FWIW I think that's a dumb ruling;

Well it fits the text better. The check to see if something is outside your arc, not if it's inside your arc. If you don't have a printed arc you can't ever be outside of it.

I'd argue that if you don't have an arc, you can never be inside of it, and if you're not inside, you MUST be outside.

It makes a vanishingly small amount of difference though given that it's a ruling about a Huge ship which only currently affects a single TIE pilot.

Does make Fenn Rau absolutely amazing at murdering GR75s though, so there's that to look forward to.

FWIW I think that's a dumb ruling;

Well it fits the text better. The check to see if something is outside your arc, not if it's inside your arc. If you don't have a printed arc you can't ever be outside of it.

So, if you have no backyard lawn behind your house, you are always in your backyard according to your logic, wherever you are on the world.

This does not work like that.... you don't have a backyard, so you are never in your backyard, end of story... There is no logic in this ruling, don't try to fix one...

It is very nice that you try to defend this guy, but I am getting really annoyed by just reading this thread.

Here, FAQ, page 19:

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

If he still insists, then just let it go and don't play with him anymore.

FWIW I think that's a dumb ruling;

Well it fits the text better. The check to see if something is outside your arc, not if it's inside your arc. If you don't have a printed arc you can't ever be outside of it.

So, if you have no backyard lawn behind your house, you are always in your backyard according to your logic, wherever you are on the world.

This does not work like that.... you don't have a backyard, so you are never in your backyard, end of story... There is no logic in this ruling, don't try to fix one...

The world is my backyard or something I dunno.

Like the ruling or not, that is the ruling and that is the logic they used to make that ruling.

Like the ruling or not, that is the ruling and that is the logic they used to make that ruling.

I have been trying to find this ruling (about the can't be out of firing arc when there is not a firing arc printed) and can't see it in either the epic rule book or in the FAQ. Can you show it to me, I am a

Noob asking honestly not trying to make trouble for anyone.

Can you show it to me, I am a Noob asking honestly not trying to make trouble for anyone.

I think it was in one of the epic ship rule PDF's but I don't remember which one. FFG also has FAQ's where a ruling is no longer listed in the document.

I don't know if that's because they changed their mind, just missed it or what. So it might be that the thing about the GR-75 is no longer listed in any of the current PDF's.

Can you show it to me, I am a Noob asking honestly not trying to make trouble for anyone.

I think it was in one of the epic ship rule PDF's but I don't remember which one. FFG also has FAQ's where a ruling is no longer listed in the document.

I don't know if that's because they changed their mind, just missed it or what. So it might be that the thing about the GR-75 is no longer listed in any of the current PDF's.

Figures, but that sounds like it makes it hard to enforce if it can't be found again. Thanks for the reply.

Finally there's this from the FAQ on page 16.

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.

There's no way someone can read that and come away from it confused.

And that's the rule/FAQ entry I was looking for, but do you think I could find it when I needed it most?

Thanks Vanor!

Incidentally, in the latest FAQ it's on page 19 now.

How could you shoot "outside the firing arc" if the whole thing was the firing arc? That's like saying the front fell off of the ship so you moved the ship "outside the environment".

You have to assume FFG didn't want 360 degree firing arcs because they didn't want ships and/or weapons that ALWAYS had opponents in arc.

The GR-75, because it has no printed fire arc can never have a ship outside it's firing arc. That was in one of the FAQ's or maybe the epic ship rules.

Well, call me funny, but I don't see how a ship with no weapons (and no way to equip them) would ever have a firing arc in the first place, let alone one to be outside of.

And to be clear, I'm on the side of the OP here. My comment was more towards the discussion as to why FFG didn't just do 360 degree arcs.

It may have solved a few issues, to be sure.

You have to assume FFG didn't want 360 degree firing arcs because they didn't want ships and/or weapons that ALWAYS had opponents in arc.

The GR-75, because it has no printed fire arc can never have a ship outside it's firing arc. That was in one of the FAQ's or maybe the epic ship rules.

Well, call me funny, but I don't see how a ship with no weapons (and no way to equip them) would ever have a firing arc in the first place, let alone one to be outside of.

And to be clear, I'm on the side of the OP here. My comment was more towards the discussion as to why FFG didn't just do 360 degree arcs.

Because Y-Wing's, K-wing's, Hawk's, and the like would be OP and they would be the top of the Meta builds all the time. Of course this would make the game boring as heck by now.

Making ships that don't need to be maneuvered very much that powerful would ruin the game. Hence why wave 9 has no turrets.

My comment was more towards the discussion as to why FFG didn't just do 360 degree arcs.

Because Ord can still only fire from printed arcs.

Imagine if the Contested Scout had a 360 degree arc for torpedos...