Okay so a buddy and I debated this a bit and could not find anything on it. I'll try to paint the picture as best as possible.

So I'm flying the TIE SF with the title card which states

" 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."

My buddy had Kylo Ren'd me and picked blinded pilot from the force awakens deck which states

"You cannot perform attacks. After your next opportunity to attack (even if there was no target for an attack), flip this card facedown."

So he rolls his attack die on my SF and I happen to not evade a crit result and so now I'm blinded. Fine.

It is now my turn to attack with the SF and I have no enemy ships in my primary firing arc, but I do have one in my rear firing arc.

Would I not be allowed to perform my additional attack from my rear firing arc?

I figure I first resolve the crit card with my primary arc attack (even if there was no target for an attack) and since I didn't roll an additional dice for my primary arc attack, I can now perform my additional attack from the rear.

I'm pretty darn sure that's legit, but if I could get FFG or someone to clarify that, that would be awesome. Pretty sure that should go in the next FAQ. Thanks!

Short answer: No.

Medium answer: This would work with the old Blinded Pilot, but not the new one.

Long answer: The extra attack from your aux arc with the Special Ops title is triggered by performing an attack out of your primary arc (and not using the extra die). Performing an attack and rolling 0 attack dice is still performing an attack, which is why it works with the old damage deck, but not performing an attack is definitely not performing an attack.

You never attacked with your primary weapon from your primary firing arc , as you cannot perform attacks while (FA) blinded.

Edit & Ninja: So the answer is no, no rear arc shot.

1 hour ago, digitalbusker said:

Short answer: No.

Medium answer: This would work with the old Blinded Pilot, but not the new one.

Long answer: The extra attack from your aux arc with the Special Ops title is triggered by performing an attack out of your primary arc (and not using the extra die). Performing an attack and rolling 0 attack dice is still performing an attack, which is why it works with the old damage deck, but not performing an attack is definitely not performing an attack.

Nice and to the point.

No attack = no trigger for the Special Ops title.

Still not convinced.

No where in the title card does it state "after performing." Furthermore, "if you do not" is referring to "you may add an additional attack die" and not "When." The first sentence of the title card reads only as a condition to add an additional die.

26 minutes ago, WSaprito said:

Still not convinced.

No where in the title card does it state "after performing." Furthermore, "if you do not" is referring to "you may add an additional attack die" and not "When." The first sentence of the title card reads only as a condition to add an additional die.

This title has been debated many, many times and the end result is the same. It doesn't need to state " after performing... ", because how can you have an additional attack without performing an attack to begin with?

The second sentence on the card should possibly read: "If you do not roll the additional die , you may perform an additional attack from your auxiliary firing arc." It is not referring to not performing an attack out of the primary arc.

Regardless of whether or not you are convinced, @digitalbusker is 100% correct here. I'd suggest searching "Special Ops Training" in this sub-forum and you should find a large amount of discussion on it, that may clarify things a little. I'm fairly sure there's been several email quotes from FFG that have settled how the title works.

15 hours ago, WSaprito said:

Still not convinced.

No where in the title card does it state "after performing." Furthermore, "if you do not" is referring to "you may add an additional attack die" and not "When." The first sentence of the title card reads only as a condition to add an additional die.

Are you one of those people who will only listen to answers if they happen to agree with what you want to hear for an answer?

Let's just go back to your original post and the quote "WHEN attacking with your... " and just answer the "when did you make your attack with your primary weapon to trigger the title?" You never did so there is no trigger. Here "attacking," "make an attack," and even "performed your attack" are all talking about the same thing which you never did.

23 hours ago, WSaprito said:

Still not convinced.

No where in the title card does it state "after performing." Furthermore, "if you do not" is referring to "you may add an additional attack die" and not "When." The first sentence of the title card reads only as a condition to add an additional die.

Put it this way: if you don't make a primary attack from your primary arc, you don't meet the "When" condition on the card. If you don't meet that condition, you stop reading. The rest of the text on the card might as well not exist until you meet the trigger.

To put it another way: if your interpretation was correct, then a TIE/sf could make a free attack out the rear any time they like. "Oh, I just executed a maneuver and passed over a debris cloud. I didn't roll an additional attack die, so I guess I get to make an attack out the rear!"

Whoa whoa whoa fellas lol take it easy. A few of you are getting a little too emotional and might be mistaking me for someone incapable of having a healthy, constructive debate over a game. Don't take it personal. Although Parravon, among the few, does end the argument by bringing up "additional attack."

Again. The "When attacking" is only a condition to being allowed to roll an additional attack die. How it is worded has nothing to do with performing an attack. The "additional attack" does make a vague implication that an attack from the primary firing arc has already happened, but FFG is usually VERY specific in their wording.

Fly casual, boys and thank you for your insight, whether snarky or sarcastic. ; )

10 minutes ago, WSaprito said:

but FFG is usually VERY specific in their wording.

The new guy's funny.

3 hours ago, WSaprito said:

Whoa whoa whoa fellas lol take it easy. A few of you are getting a little too emotional and might be mistaking me for someone incapable of having a healthy, constructive debate over a game. Don't take it personal. Although Parravon, among the few, does end the argument by bringing up "additional attack."

Again. The "When attacking" is only a condition to being allowed to roll an additional attack die. How it is worded has nothing to do with performing an attack. The "additional attack" does make a vague implication that an attack from the primary firing arc has already happened, but FFG is usually VERY specific in their wording.

Fly casual, boys and thank you for your insight, whether snarky or sarcastic. ; )

You are wrong. When attacking with your primary weapon from your primary arc is the condition for making a choice of whether to add an extra die or make a buttgun shot.

5 hours ago, WSaprito said:

Whoa whoa whoa fellas lol take it easy. A few of you are getting a little too emotional and might be mistaking me for someone incapable of having a healthy, constructive debate over a game. Don't take it personal.

I don't think so. The answers here all seem pretty reasonable, and as far as I can see, the only person that looks like they are overreacting is you.

The short of it is that you're half-right but taking the wrong message from it. Yes, the 'When attacking' is a condition only for the primary arc attack. However, the 'if not' trigger for the second sentence requires that the first sentence happened and the option a to add an attack dice was refused. The phrasing of the second sentence directly links it to the first; it is not a separate ability.

Let me use an argumentum ad absurdum to make the point:

If the card worked as you suggested, you would trigger it any time you did not roll an extra attack dice on a primary attack, which is literally every point in the game ever. That would mean that Special Ops Training gave an infinite number of attacks from its rear arc at absolutely any point during the game. Revealed your dial? Well, you didn't just take an extra die on an attack, so have a rear arc attack!

Now obviously that's absurd (I hope), but it highlights that what we need to focus on is how that 'if not' trigger functions. The above scenario is what happens if you treat it as 'any time you have not'. This does not work out well. In practice, what the 'if not' actually responds to is actually having the chance to do the thing you're choosing not to do. That's the only way you restrict it to only triggering the once during each grated opportunity to attack. From that perspective, the Force Awakens version of Blinded Pilot denies you the opportunity to attack and thus you never had the chance to add the attack dice and cannot trigger the second part off the choice not to take it. Having framed it this way, I hope you can now see that if you were allowed to trigger SpecOps Training's second sentence from not making an attack at all, then you could trigger it ad infinitum .

Which means you have to make a choice about which sounds more reasonable to you: infinite rear-arc attacks from attacks that aren't happening, or one rear-arc attack each time you had the opportunity to add an attack dice to a primary attack from the primary arc and voluntarily chose not to? The possibility of adding the extra dice in the first place is key to triggering the extra attack. If there is no primary attack from the primary arc then there is no chance to add an extra dice to that attack. Thus, there is no opportunity to refuse that chance and trigger the second part of SpecOps Training.

14 hours ago, WSaprito said:

Whoa whoa whoa fellas lol take it easy. A few of you are getting a little too emotional and might be mistaking me for someone incapable of having a healthy, constructive debate over a game. Don't take it personal. Although Parravon, among the few, does end the argument by bringing up "additional attack."

I don't mean to chase you away when you're only at 3 posts as I'm typing but there ARE those type of people who will pop up looking for support for their idea/position but then get upset when their idea gets shot down by established facts. You're asking a rules question in the right forum and while there are areas where you could find some debate, usually on unreleased or recently released materiel, when you get a number of definitive answers that are in agreement you probably need to come back with something stronger than a "still not convinced" when the answer that apparently runs counter to yours.

Not to jump on the bandwagon of appearing to be "getting emotional", but I can think of at least three threads recently concerning and discussing Special Ops and how the bonus rear attack works. I believe Parravon was the one who pointed it out in previous posts (my apologies if I'm misquoting) but when attacking a ship in your primary arc while having Special Ops title equipped, you have the option to either:

-Roll an additional die, thus not meeting the first half of the title, and ending this ship's activation after resolving the attack

-Choose not to roll an additional die, thus meeting the first half of the title and taking an additional attack on a ship in your rear arc.

-Choose not to roll an additional die, thus meeting the first half of the title but then not taking the additional attack (in the case of possibly not having a target to shoot at). This option essentially means you're not opting to use the title at all.

Without restating in depth Obi, Spacey, Parravon, Inquisitor (and quite frankly most of the other previous posters in the other threads), no front shot = no butt shot.

Inquisitor's done a thorough job at explaining the "why" this is the correct ruling. These three options are your "how" it's ruled.

19 minutes ago, Juunon said:

Not to jump on the bandwagon of appearing to be "getting emotional", but I can think of at least three threads recently concerning and discussing Special Ops and how the bonus rear attack works. I believe Parravon was the one who pointed it out in previous posts (my apologies if I'm misquoting) but when attacking a ship in your primary arc while having Special Ops title equipped, you have the option to either:

-Roll an additional die, thus not meeting the first half of the title, and ending this ship's activation after resolving the attack

-Choose not to roll an additional die, thus meeting the first half of the title and taking an additional attack on a ship in your rear arc.

-Choose not to roll an additional die, thus meeting the first half of the title but then not taking the additional attack (in the case of possibly not having a target to shoot at). This option essentially means you're not opting to use the title at all.

Without restating in depth Obi, Spacey, Parravon, Inquisitor (and quite frankly most of the other previous posters in the other threads), no front shot = no butt shot.

Inquisitor's done a thorough job at explaining the "why" this is the correct ruling. These three options are your "how" it's ruled.

NO front shot = no *extra* butt shot. You can always shoot 2 dice out of the rear arc without using the front at all.

3 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

NO front shot = no *extra* butt shot. You can always shoot 2 dice out of the rear arc without using the front at all.

Isn't that the OP's point, though? "You can always shoot 2 dice out of the rear arc without using the front at all", you know, like, whenever you feel like it, without having to worry about triggers, whether or not it's the combat phase, or anything silly like that?

50 minutes ago, ObiWonka said:

Isn't that the OP's point, though? "You can always shoot 2 dice out of the rear arc without using the front at all", you know, like, whenever you feel like it, without having to worry about triggers, whether or not it's the combat phase, or anything silly like that?

If you're being hyperbolic, sure.

5 hours ago, ObiWonka said:

Isn't that the OP's point, though? "You can always shoot 2 dice out of the rear arc without using the front at all", you know, like, whenever you feel like it, without having to worry about triggers, whether or not it's the combat phase, or anything silly like that?

Not really. From how I understand things my interpretation of the OP's thought was "I use my potential primary attack out of my front arc to satisfy Blinded Pilot and THEN I use that rear arc via the title to make my real attack." Of course now that I read the quote more closely and associate it with the rest of the thread I see you saying that because one conveniently ignores the first part of the title the back part could trigger at any time allowing rear shots all the time. Of course you may just be playing on thespaceinvader's inexact response.

The TIE/sf with title has the following attack options:

1. Primary attack out of the front arc and while completely ignoring the title.
2. Primary attack out of the front arc utilizing the first line of the title to gain an extra die.
3. Primary attack out of the front arc utilizing the title but instead of gaining the extra die gaining an attack out of the rear arc as well.
4. Primary attack out of the Rear arc. Title never triggers.

Now I think Juunon's first option is stated poorly and is the #2 I have listed here. The extra die requires using the title which requires a primary attack in the primary/front firing arc; declaring that attack activates the title allowing the additional die.

5: Missile out the front, nothing out the back.

2 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

5: Missile out the front, nothing out the back.

Keep forgetting about that one. TIE Fighters aren't supposed to have missiles; that's what Bombers are for!

11 minutes ago, StevenO said:

Keep forgetting about that one. TIE Fighters aren't supposed to have missiles; that's what Bombers are for!

It is a strange world we live in where bombers are for missiles.

4 hours ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

If you're being hyperbolic, sure.

I was referencing InquisitorM 's reply.

12 minutes ago, StevenO said:

Keep forgetting about that one. TIE Fighters aren't supposed to have missiles; that's what Bombers are for!

Don't you mean TIE Missiler?

20 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

It is a strange world we live in where bombers are for missiles.

Well it is the world we actually DO live in. You think those big B-52's carry gravity fall bombs as a deterrent? Oh no, they're carrying loads of long range missiles instead so they can reach into enemy territory without actually needed to go in there where 60's technology probably doesn't fair as well against modern defense systems.

And are you going to try and tell me our world isn't strange? It looks pretty damned strange from where I'm watching...

31 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

And are you going to try and tell me our world isn't strange? It looks pretty damned strange from where I'm watching...

Nope.