Special Forces Title

Let asume i havent read the FFG Article about the awsome Tie-SF and his Title.

I only have the rules and the cards.

"When attacking with a primary weapon from your primary firing arc, you may roll 1 additional attack die. If you do not, you may perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc."

Ok...

- first I attack with my auxiliiary firing arc,

- then i read my fancy Title-Card.

"Hmmm i didnt attack with my primary weapon from my primary firing arc,

and i didnt roll 1 additional attack die....Nice.

Condition meet,

additional attack from my auxiliary firing arc .

KABOUM"

Talk me out of it.

No. You have to attack with your primary and choose not to roll the extra die, in order to attack with your aux as well. If you haven't attacked with your primary, the entire card fails to trigger.

Special Forces Title

Let asume i havent read the FFG Article about the awsome Tie-SF and his Title.

I only have the rules and the cards.

"When attacking with a primary weapon from your primary firing arc, you may roll 1 additional attack die. If you do not, you may perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc."

Ok...

- first I attack with my auxiliiary firing arc,

- then i read my fancy Title-Card.

"Hmmm i didnt attack with my primary weapon from my primary firing arc,

and i didnt roll 1 additional attack die....Nice.

Condition meet,

additional attack from my auxiliary firing arc .

KABOUM"

Talk me out of it.

If you never attack from the Primary Arc, then the "When" trigger never goes off, and the entire upgrade card is irrelevant .

"If" you do not is in relation to adding the die.

Basically /sfs have 3 options:

Attack with the aux arc only, rolling 2 dice (3 at r1).

Attack with the front arc only, rolling 3 dice unless for some reason you want to roll 2 in which case you have the option not to trigger the title.

Attack with both arcs, rolling 2 dice from each, front first.

understood

thanks

Basically /sfs have 3 options:

Attack with the aux arc only, rolling 2 dice (3 at r1).

Attack with the front arc only, rolling 3 dice unless for some reason you want to roll 2 in which case you have the option not to trigger the title.

Attack with both arcs, rolling 2 dice from each, front first.

That seems really familiar.

Unless I badly mistaken the title is NOT a secondary weapon so the attack or attacks you make are still subject to any range effects.

Yeah, you get the range bonus if you are at range 1, I just didn't bother writing it in every time.

So I searched the threads on SF title card and read a few of them and my question isn't even that important but I just want to make sure steps are followed: To fire a second shot from the back arc you first need to fire from the front arc right? Or can someone fire the back arc and then say "to fire from the front I can only roll 2 dice because I fired from the back...". I mean it seems to be the same thing, except for token use and such so not sure if it matters... or that I am making any sense...

So I searched the threads on SF title card and read a few of them and my question isn't even that important but I just want to make sure steps are followed: To fire a second shot from the back arc you first need to fire from the front arc right? Or can someone fire the back arc and then say "to fire from the front I can only roll 2 dice because I fired from the back...". I mean it seems to be the same thing, except for token use and such so not sure if it matters... or that I am making any sense...

You must make the primary attack from the primary arc (front) without adding a die to be able to get the second attack from the auxiliary arc. You cannot perform the attacks the other way around.

Here's your options:

Basically TIE/sfs have 3 options:

Attack with the aux arc only, rolling 2 dice (3 at r1).

Attack with the front arc only, rolling 3 dice unless for some reason you want to roll 2 in which case you have the option not to trigger the title.

Attack with both arcs, rolling 2 dice from each, front first.

I had this rules question come up in a match today & i would like to see some official errata on it. My opponent argued that since no shot was made from the primary arc & no extra die was used in that non-shot, he could shoot from the rear arc twice. I argued that since no shot was made from the primary arc the entire effect of the title card was null. The judge sided with my opponent &, since there is no errata, the decision stood. FFG please respond with an errata update on the Special Forces TIE title.

10 hours ago, Stumpbum21 said:

I had this rules question come up in a match today & i would like to see some official errata on it. My opponent argued that since no shot was made from the primary arc & no extra die was used in that non-shot, he could shoot from the rear arc twice. I argued that since no shot was made from the primary arc the entire effect of the title card was null. The judge sided with my opponent &, since there is no errata, the decision stood. FFG please respond with an errata update on the Special Forces TIE title.

I guess this needs an FAQ because of stuff like this.

Frankly the wording of the card is VERY clear (WHEN ATTACKING... from your primary arc) and I don't think there's any disagreement on this forum, but I've seen this question come up enough times it apparently needs to be officially answered.

On 10/9/2016 at 10:57 PM, demoses said:

So I searched the threads on SF title card and read a few of them and my question isn't even that important but I just want to make sure steps are followed: To fire a second shot from the back arc you first need to fire from the front arc right? Or can someone fire the back arc and then say "to fire from the front I can only roll 2 dice because I fired from the back...". I mean it seems to be the same thing, except for token use and such so not sure if it matters... or that I am making any sense...

You must fire from the front arc first. It may seem like it doesn't matter, but there are several situations in which it could. For example if Rex is in your rear arc and has applied suppressing fire to you, it would be highly advantageous to shoot him first to prevent the loss of a die from your front arc attack.

11 hours ago, Stumpbum21 said:

I had this rules question come up in a match today & i would like to see some official errata on it. My opponent argued that since no shot was made from the primary arc & no extra die was used in that non-shot, he could shoot from the rear arc twice. I argued that since no shot was made from the primary arc the entire effect of the title card was null. The judge sided with my opponent &, since there is no errata, the decision stood. FFG please respond with an errata update on the Special Forces TIE title.

Your opponent is wrong, and FFG don't respond to forum threads. Send in a rules question: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/

But don't expect an answer soon.

Space Invader, thank you for the link. I sent a request to FFG. Hopefully this situation will be resolved soon. Everyone else that has posted here please also send a request to FFG using https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/ . Maybe we can prod them into action.

6 hours ago, Stumpbum21 said:

Space Invader, thank you for the link. I sent a request to FFG. Hopefully this situation will be resolved soon. Everyone else that has posted here please also send a request to FFG using https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/ . Maybe we can prod them into action.

The one that needs "prodding into action" is the judge that got it wrong also. This one has been hashed out here so many times, I've lost count. How can someone judge a tournament and not have seen the various threads?

To be fair... Special Ops Training's wording is a tiny bit ambiguous. The part of "If you do not, you may perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc," can honestly be interpreted a couple of different ways. Having said that, the general acceptance is that you must be attacking from your primary arc, so that's what you should go with, but if so many people are getting this confused, it warrants a simple update in the next FAQ because in earnest, just because we all hashed it out on-line, doesn't make it FFG official.

4 hours ago, shaunmerritt said:

To be fair... Special Ops Training's wording is a tiny bit ambiguous. The part of "If you do not, you may perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc," can honestly be interpreted a couple of different ways. Having said that, the general acceptance is that you must be attacking from your primary arc, so that's what you should go with, but if so many people are getting this confused, it warrants a simple update in the next FAQ because in earnest, just because we all hashed it out on-line, doesn't make it FFG official.

The card is misunderstood, yes. But not because it is ambiguous. People want it to work in a certain way, so they convince themselves however they need to that it does, and, if they complain loud enough, they know they might get away with it, "until the FAQ."

This is literally going to be what kills X-Wing, in the end. It's not the first game to suffer such a fate. But we're reaching a critical mass where almost every new card "needs" an FAQ... When very often they do not.

14 hours ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

People want it to work in a certain way, so they convince themselves however they need to that it does...

If a TO apparently also reads the card in the 'wrong' way, then this is not the result of wishful thinking. A TO has no interest in reading a card in a certain way.

The "if you do not" of the card is ambiguous between these two meanings:

1) "If you do not [attack with a primary weapon from your primary firing arc]..."

and

2) "If you do not [roll 1 additional attack die]..."

The card itself offers no clue as to what way of reading it is the correct one. I think it should be clarified in the FAQ. Like most here, my money is on option 1).

1 minute ago, Verlaine said:

If a TO apparently also reads the card in the 'wrong' way, then this is not the result of wishful thinking. A TO has no interest in reading a card in a certain way.

The "if you do not" of the card is ambiguous between these two meanings:

1) "If you do not [attack with a primary weapon from your primary firing arc]..."

and

2) "If you do not [roll 1 additional attack die]..."

The card itself offers no clue as to what way of reading it is the correct one. I think it should be clarified in the FAQ. Like most here, my money is on option 1).

No, it really does.

When doing thing, you may do x. If you do not, do y.

The if you do not can only refer to doing x.

When doing thing is the timing of the card, not an option.

The card is clear.

It undoubtedly could be clearer, and I don't disagree that an FAQ to finally put this to rest would be helpful, but the language on the card is unambiguous.

11 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

No, it really does.

When doing thing, you may do x. If you do not, do y.

The if you do not can only refer to doing x.

It could also be read as "if you do not do thing". And identifiably, it is: we see that some read it in that manner. So that makes debating it rather pointless, because you're just repeating how very clear it is to you. That is fine in itself, but not helpful for the game.

As I have said before, if you try to read the card as 'if you do not attack out of the front arc and roll a dice' (which I agree with Spacey is not a valid way to read the card from a language perspective), then SpecOps Training triggers constantly and grants infinite attacks. It is simply not possible for the card to work this way based on what the card says.

Just now, Verlaine said:

It could also be read as "if you do not do thing". And identifiably, it is: we see that some read it in that manner. So that makes debating it rather pointless, because you're just repeating how very clear it is to you. That is fine in itself, but not helpful for the game.

No it couldn't.

FOr that to work, it would have to say 'If you do thing, do x. If you do not, do y.' The if not has to pair with the first if.

People having poor reading comprehension does not make the card ambiguously worded.

And it helps if you quote the whole post. Here's the rest

18 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

The card is clear.

It undoubtedly could be clearer, and I don't disagree that an FAQ to finally put this to rest would be helpful, but the language on the card is unambiguous.

This is a question that's definitely frequently asked, so it deserves a place in the FAQ just on that basis.

3 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

As I have said before, if you try to read the card as 'if you do not attack out of the front arc and roll a dice' (which I agree with Spacey is not a valid way to read the card from a language perspective), then SpecOps Training triggers constantly and grants infinite attacks. It is simply not possible for the card to work this way based on what the card says.

haha, true! Moreover, if gives you infinite attacks from the moment the game begins. "I perform a right turn 2 maneuver.. I didn't attack out of the front arc, so I get an attack out of the rear arc... I take a focus action, that isn't an attack out of the front arc, so I get an attack out of the rear arc." I seriously don't understand how anyone can argue that you can use the second sentence without the first one. The ability is together. Is their reading comprehension so bad that they forget what they read as soon as they hit a period? If these were 2 separate paragraphs they might have an argument. But there is no other way to write it that the way it is written.

53 minutes ago, xbeaker said:

haha, true! Moreover, if gives you infinite attacks from the moment the game begins. "I perform a right turn 2 maneuver.. I didn't attack out of the front arc, so I get an attack out of the rear arc... I take a focus action, that isn't an attack out of the front arc, so I get an attack out of the rear arc." I seriously don't understand how anyone can argue that you can use the second sentence without the first one. The ability is together. Is their reading comprehension so bad that they forget what they read as soon as they hit a period? If these were 2 separate paragraphs they might have an argument. But there is no other way to write it that the way it is written.

Sometimes, cards do offer different effects based on periods. Consider Collision Detector. The space on CD is simply because it has the room, it isn't any different functionally than the period on Special Forces.

The difference with Special Forces is that the second sentence refers directly to the first. When this happens, some people get confused as to how the card is supposed to work. For some reason, they feel any part of the first sentence is a qualifier, when, in fact, it's the whole thing.

If the second clause doesn't stand on its own, then it requires the first clause to be triggered -- if the first clause isn't triggered, then the upgrade isn't being used in that scenario. This is how all upgrades work, but, again, some tend to struggle if there are two clauses that have a direct correlation to each other.

The wording on the choice is unclear, but the wording on timing is not. "When attacking with a primary weapon from your primary firing arc" is the trigger for the entire card, in the same way that other cards with timing use "when", "after", "before", etc. So while the "if you do not" could be interpreted in many ways, the trigger for the whole thing "When attacking...arc" is very clear. "If you do not" only comes into play if the ability triggers at all, and that only happens when firing out of your primary arc with your primary weapon.

Special Forces Title

Let asume i havent read the FFG Article about the awsome Tie-SF and his Title.

I only have the rules and the cards.

"When attacking with a primary weapon from your primary firing arc, you may roll 1 additional attack die. If you do not, you may perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc."

Ok...

- first I attack with my auxiliiary firing arc,

- then i read my fancy Title-Card.

"Hmmm i didnt attack with my primary weapon from my primary firing arc,

and i didnt roll 1 additional attack die....Nice.

Condition meet,

additional attack from my auxiliary firing arc .

KABOUM"

Talk me out of it.

The condition is not met, because when you are reading your fancy Title-Card you are not currently "attacking with a primary weapon from your primary firing arc" and it only goes off "WHEN attacking with a primary weapon from your primary firing arc", not "AFTER attacking with a primary weapon from your primary firing arc". For that matter, it wouldn't go off even if it were worded that way, because you never did "attack with a primary weapon from your primary firing arc" which is the timing condition for the card, regardless of the yes/no question at the end. It's not a question of whether or not you did it, it's a question of timing.