I was using a Raider-1 this past week with Ordnance Experts on it. My opponent was unsure how that would work so he ask if I was sure it was legal to use OE for each anti-squadron roll. I was confident that I could.

However, after looking carefully at the Rules Reference, I'm not so sure. It states specifically that in the Ship Phase you get two attacks. If one of those attacks is against a squadron, you may (at the end of Attack Resolution, Step 6), choose another target and go back to Step 2 of Attack Resolution. Nowhere do I see it stated that this is actually a second (or third or fourth...) attack. So, since the timing of Ordnance Experts is "While attacking..." and you can only resolve it once for each specified event (in this case an attack), I think Ordnance Experts should only work once.

It seems like Flechette Torpedoes are different, though, because its wording is "While attacking a squadron..." So once I'm attacking a different squadron, that is a new event as specified by the card. So you can resolve Flechette Torpedoes each time.

Thoughts? I'd love to be wrong.

PS. I DID search this topic and found an answer by Dras that said that each attack on a squadron is treated as a different attack. I just want to know how my interpretation is incorrect from the rules. Thanks!

As per the FAQ - Every Single anti-squadron "Attack" you make is considered a separate attack for Upgrade Card Purposes.

This means if you have 6 squadrons in one arc, and decide to shoot them all... You could use Ordnance Experts and Fletchette Torpedoes on each and every one of them , because they are Once "per attack", and each Anti-Squadron "Shot" in this case is a Separate Attack for Upgrade Card purposes...

That's the guidance we've been given.

The only difference between "While Attacking" and "While attacking a Squadron" is you need to have the target in mind - Ordnance experts can be used on Anti-Ship attacks as well as Anti-Squadron attacks. That's the only difference there.

I'll detach my usual "Salvo" vs "Attack" rant. But this is a prime case for it. Would solve it entirely

Thanks for the (as usual) clear and rapid response!