Does the word choice "additional" imply that you may take the auxiliary arc shot only after the primary arc shot?

Or can you choose the order in which you take the shots?

You can't choose the order. For the title to trigger you have to attack from the primary arc first. If you attack from the aux. arc, the title do not trigger and then you can't attack from the primary arc because you already made an attack this turn.

Specifically, this is because the extra rear arc attack is triggered by your choice to not roll an extra red die out the front. If you don't perform a primary shot first, you don't have the opportunity to make that choice.

You have to attack out the primary arc first since thats the trigger. The "If You Do Not" part is best thought of as an "Else" statement:

If: You performed an attack out your primary firing arc
Then: Roll +1 attack die
Else: Do not roll +1 attack die and perform an additional attack out the Aux Arc

Both effects trigger off the same event, firing out the front, but you have to pick which one to do. Since you have already declared your primary arc attack in order to trigger the card, you have to finish it before moving on.

2 hours ago, Vineheart01 said:

You have to attack out the primary arc first since thats the trigger. The "If You Do Not" part is best thought of as an "Else" statement:

If: You performed an attack out your primary firing arc
Then: Roll +1 attack die
Else: Do not roll +1 attack die and perform an additional attack out the Aux Arc

Both effects trigger off the same event, firing out the front, but you have to pick which one to do. Since you have already declared your primary arc attack in order to trigger the card, you have to finish it before moving on.

Noooo, no no no no. As a software developer, I have to tell you that you're using "if-then-else" wrong. The title uses nested ifs. It is more correct to say this:

IF (you perform a primary attack out of your primary firing arc)

THEN [ you may roll +1 attack die. IF (you did NOT roll +1 attack die) THEN (make extra attack from the rear) ]

The important thing about stating it this way is that it makes it super clear that when you don't qualify for the contents of the first IF clause, the entire contents of the first THEN clause never happen.

That was more of a "Think of it this way" than exact correlation to if, then, else.

You're right that it isnt the correct way to use that statement. Usually there isnt a physical choice in there, pretty much the only way ive used it is IF data received matches a predefined value, THEN do this ELSE ignore this statement, then again the extent of my programming is C#, BASIC, and PLC LadderLogic. Largest program ive made was around 600 lines of BASIC lol....programming isnt my thing, im a circuits guy.

End of the day the card would have been much clearer if they just said "Or" in there rather than "If you do not"

On 6/13/2017 at 11:50 AM, EdgeOfDreams said:

Noooo, no no no no. As a software developer, I have to tell you that you're using "if-then-else" wrong. The title uses nested ifs. It is more correct to say this:

IF (you perform a primary attack out of your primary firing arc)

THEN [ you may roll +1 attack die. IF (you did NOT roll +1 attack die) THEN (make extra attack from the rear) ]

The important thing about stating it this way is that it makes it super clear that when you don't qualify for the contents of the first IF clause, the entire contents of the first THEN clause never happen.

More correct:

If (Attack_front){
(gosub Attack_front_arc(Attack_value +1)) OR (gosub Attack_front_arc(Attack_value) gosub Attack_rear_arc(Attack_value))
}
else gosub Attack_rear_arc(Attack_value)

** programmers unite! lol

I disagree.
The card does not specify order of attack, it only specifies that not rolling an additional dice out the front allows you to attack twice, once in each arc.

I do not see any wording that stops you from shooting 2 dice out of the back and then 2 dice out of the front in any order you wish. The rear arc is always a valid arc for attack.

*rereading the title*
Idk maybe I'm wrong, has anyone ever asked the devs this and got a response?
I guess the primary attack is there as a requirement because you could possibly use the wording as taking two shots out of the back as the rear arc is always valid to shoot out of.

22 minutes ago, Shraken said:

I disagree.
The card does not specify order of attack, it only specifies that not rolling an additional dice out the front allows you to attack twice, once in each arc.

I do not see any wording that stops you from shooting 2 dice out of the back and then 2 dice out of the front in any order you wish. The rear arc is always a valid arc for attack.

*rereading the title*
Idk maybe I'm wrong, has anyone ever asked the devs this and got a response?
I guess the primary attack is there as a requirement because you could possibly use the wording as taking two shots out of the back as the rear arc is always valid to shoot out of.

You are wrong.

When attacking with your primary weaponf rom your primary arc, you may roll an extra die out OR attack out the rear.

In order to know whether you can attack twice, you have to do the front arc shot first. Once you get far enough intot he shot to know that, you're into the attack sequence already.

You can't shoot twice out the back, because you have no way to make the decision as to whether to roll the extra die or make the second attack. You just get one attack.

It could have been written better, for sure, but it is not ambiguous.

But you may ONLY attack out of your aux arc (2 dice) and no shots out of the prim. arc (if no target in prim. arc), right?

Just now, SOLAR FLARE said:

But you may only attack out of your aux arc (2 dice) and no shots out of the prim. arc, right?

If you attack only out of your auxiliary arc, you get exactly one attack, with two dice (before any extras for range, EPTs etc), yes.

On 28/06/2017 at 5:56 AM, Shraken said:

I disagree.
The card does not specify order of attack, it only specifies that not rolling an additional dice out the front allows you to attack twice, once in each arc.

I do not see any wording that stops you from shooting 2 dice out of the back and then 2 dice out of the front in any order you wish. The rear arc is always a valid arc for attack

While I don't think it works this way, I also don't see that it would make that much difference if it did. If you're shooting two different targets then, sure, it makes a difference, but that difference is entirely random. You have to make decisions about when to spend your tokens, but you'd have to do that in any case, the attacks are just swapped around. If you're shooting the same target, it makes absolutely no difference. Even Backdraft gets his crit on both shots in that case. Am I missing something? I can't really think of a case where choosing which attack to do first is actually consistently helpful.

It can make a pretty big difference whe you have Fire Control System and a Target Lock on the guy behind you, which you'd prefer to be on the guy in front...

13 hours ago, fhdz said:

While I don't think it works this way, I also don't see that it would make that much difference if it did. If you're shooting two different targets then, sure, it makes a difference, but that difference is entirely random. You have to make decisions about when to spend your tokens, but you'd have to do that in any case, the attacks are just swapped around. If you're shooting the same target, it makes absolutely no difference. Even Backdraft gets his crit on both shots in that case. Am I missing something? I can't really think of a case where choosing which attack to do first is actually consistently helpful.

I get what you are saying.. you are attacking 2 targets, 1 front, 1 rear, if you let your opponent know you are shooting both, who cares the order? But the order does matter because the first ship you attack is at the greater disadvantage usually. Since the first attack you will have your focus or other abilities that trigger once per round. So that second shot, even though it is at the same strength won't have as much support. For example, If you had a focus and there was a wounded TIE interceptor with a lower pilot skill at range 1 behind and a Decimator in front, you would want to shoot the Interceptor first and hopefully destroy it before it could return fire. Having that focus gives a strategic advantage because you can decide it's use on the attack. If you shot the Decimator first and rolled 2 eyes, you might be tempted to spend the token leaving you without it for the Interceptor, but if you keep it an roll 3 hits on the Interceptor than it was largely wasted. You wantt o know if you need that focus for the Interceptor, so it would be you fist roll if you had the choice.

What I never got was the need to play out damage cards on ships that have been destroyed in an attack. Yes, those cards played remove crits from the deck that could be applied to other ships, but as the deck is random and you never flip the cards over, your odds of getting any given crit have not changed. If you have a deck of 10 cards, numbered 1 - 10 and they are shuffled to be random, and you draw any 1 card and look at it, what are the odds it is a the 1? 1 in 10 right? So now that same deck is reshuffled, again fully random, but this time you deal 5 cards off the top without looking at them. from the remaining deck, what are the odds of drawing the 1? Well, there is a 1 in 2 chance the 1 isn't even in that deck any more, and a 1 in 5 chance of drawing it if it is. So your odds are 1 in 10. Nothing has changed. Without the additional data of seeing what was removed, you have not modified the odds at all. Now, if you get a crit, and have to put it on the ship, that changes things, as it gives you information. But it just seems weird that you have to deal out cards for no reason.

On 6/28/2017 at 8:55 PM, fhdz said:

While I don't think it works this way, I also don't see that it would make that much difference if it did. If you're shooting two different targets then, sure, it makes a difference, but that difference is entirely random. You have to make decisions about when to spend your tokens, but you'd have to do that in any case, the attacks are just swapped around. If you're shooting the same target, it makes absolutely no difference. Even Backdraft gets his crit on both shots in that case. Am I missing something? I can't really think of a case where choosing which attack to do first is actually consistently helpful.

Captain Rex had his token on me and was in my aux arc, I had a target at Range 1 in front.

In this case, I would have liked to shoot 3 vs the primary target and 2 to Rex, but because of Suppressive Fire, I had to do 2 and 2 if I wanted to clear the token, or 3 and n/a if I decided to keep the token.

For this to work, sf title needed to be worded differently, though.

On 6/28/2017 at 10:55 PM, fhdz said:

While I don't think it works this way, I also don't see that it would make that much difference if it did. If you're shooting two different targets then, sure, it makes a difference, but that difference is entirely random. You have to make decisions about when to spend your tokens, but you'd have to do that in any case, the attacks are just swapped around. If you're shooting the same target, it makes absolutely no difference. Even Backdraft gets his crit on both shots in that case. Am I missing something? I can't really think of a case where choosing which attack to do first is actually consistently helpful.

Barring a very specific situation where you are next to a large ship in such a way that they are in both your front and rear arc, something that would require insane luck to pull off you will not get both shots against the same target. And in Sparklelord's example and mine above there is are times you would definitely benefit from attacking from the rear arc first. But you must attack front first.

12 hours ago, xbeaker said:

Barring a very specific situation where you are next to a large ship in such a way that they are in both your front and rear arc, something that would require insane luck to pull off you will not get both shots against the same target. And in Sparklelord's example and mine above there is are times you would definitely benefit from attacking from the rear arc first. But you must attack front first.

Sure, there are times you'd benefit. But I don't think the benefits would be consistent enough to matter all that much. (Particularly since I find, most of the time, that I'd rather just take the 3-dice shot out the front anyway.)

14 hours ago, fhdz said:

Sure, there are times you'd benefit. But I don't think the benefits would be consistent enough to matter all that much. (Particularly since I find, most of the time, that I'd rather just take the 3-dice shot out the front anyway.)

well, yeah, if you are taking that 3 shot out the front. It is the situations where you could shoot front and rear that we are talking about. If you are only shooting front, or only shooting rear that is no problem, but if you are using both, you must use front first. Just pointing out that it does matter who (gets) shot first.

On 6/29/2017 at 10:54 AM, xbeaker said:

What I never got was the need to play out damage cards on ships that have been destroyed in an attack. Yes, those cards played remove crits from the deck that could be applied to other ships, but as the deck is random and you never flip the cards over, your odds of getting any given crit have not changed. If you have a deck of 10 cards, numbered 1 - 10 and they are shuffled to be random, and you draw any 1 card and look at it, what are the odds it is a the 1? 1 in 10 right? So now that same deck is reshuffled, again fully random, but this time you deal 5 cards off the top without looking at them. from the remaining deck, what are the odds of drawing the 1? Well, there is a 1 in 2 chance the 1 isn't even in that deck any more, and a 1 in 5 chance of drawing it if it is. So your odds are 1 in 10. Nothing has changed. Without the additional data of seeing what was removed, you have not modified the odds at all. Now, if you get a crit, and have to put it on the ship, that changes things, as it gives you information. But it just seems weird that you have to deal out cards for no reason.

The order of the damage deck is set at the beginning of the game and, in most cases, stays constant throughout.It's not schrodinger's deck, so to not take cards off the deck is to invalidate the game state. This is one of the reasons Tel tells you to cancel remaining hits.

6 hours ago, Orcdruid said:

The order of the damage deck is set at the beginning of the game and, in most cases, stays constant throughout.It's not schrodinger's deck, so to not take cards off the deck is to invalidate the game state. This is one of the reasons Tel tells you to cancel remaining hits.

It is set due to shuffling, but random. There is no way to know what the next card will be, and there is no inherent advantage or disadvantage to removing cards blindly from the deck. Neither player gains an advantage by having cards removed if they don't know what the removed cards are. by the mathematics of probability, as I showed above, removing cards blindly does not change the chance of any given card being pulled beyond what it was when the deck was complete. I get the need for each player to have their own deck. But blind drawing cards to place on a destroyed ship is superstition, it does not effect the game in any way.

33 minutes ago, xbeaker said:

But blind drawing cards to place on a destroyed ship is superstition, it does not effect the game in any way.

Even if it was not blind. The only difference is you know you now have less probability of a card. But mostly this does not change anything. This is all random. You could have hit it or you could have not. This is what I always argue with people that think self milling is bad or a "real" cost in CCG game. Milling change nothing until you have no card remaining. But if everyone were really grasping probability, no one would play lotteries.

@xbeaker The damage deck is not a quantum object. Just because you don't know the state doesn't mean that it could be any state. As I said earlier the state is set at the beginning of the game. Also the attack flow chart says nothing about stopping dealing damage once a ship has taken lethal damage so there is no "superstition" about it.

Strictly speaking, when the ship dies all the cards are discarded face up, so strictly speaking milling DOES have a game impact - you know what crits are left in the deck and which are not.

It's just that almost nobody ever bothers to do it.

22 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Strictly speaking, when the ship dies all the cards are discarded face up, so strictly speaking milling DOES have a game impact - you know what crits are left in the deck and which are not.

It's just that almost nobody ever bothers to do it.

I didn't know that, but you are correct. So that does change things.

I wonder if the existence of I'll Show You the Dark Side will make looking at the Damage Deck discards a more or less common occurrence.