Ok, this would have been cleared up way earlier if someone had said that Outmaneuver is actually listed in the FAQ. Haha. So the thing is, OM doesnt say "primary" anywhere in the text, while other cards do. And that's the differentiation I was hung up on. Apparently that inconsistency doesn't matter and all specified V attacks are primary (but not all V effects...)

Derp sorry OM does work when attacking with torps/cannons.

2 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Derp sorry OM does work when attacking with torps/cannons.

Its hard for me too to overcome 1.0 habits!

I wish FFG had chosen to be consistent with their application of the word "primary." It would have made things more clear and increased their design space for attacks.

5 minutes ago, sthej said:

I wish FFG had chosen to be consistent with their application of the word "primary." It would have made things more clear and increased their design space for attacks.

Are they not consistent? A search through the rules reference shows primary referring to a primary weapon or primary attack (which is an attack with your primary weapon). That seems pretty consistent to me.

It's consist3nt it's just confusing.

2 hours ago, joeshmoe554 said:

Are they not consistent? A search through the rules reference shows primary referring to a primary weapon or primary attack (which is an attack with your primary weapon). That seems pretty consistent to me.

The part that isn't consistent is that whenever a V attack is referenced, it's implying "primary V attack". However, some cards literally say primary ("primary V attack") and others don't (just "V attack"). My example is the FAQ at the end of the rules reference-Fearless includes "primary" but Outmaneuver doesn't. The FAQ says they're treated the same. Thus inconsistent.

A front-arc attack is a front-arc attack. I haven't seen anywhere that a "primary front-arc attack" is implied. The cards that say primary front-arc attack are referring to a primary weapon that uses the front-arc. The cards that only refer to a front-arc attack apply to all front-arc attacks whether the attack comes from a primary weapon or a special weapon. Both Fearless and Outmaneuver require a front-arc attack, but only Fearless actually requires that the attack come from the primary weapon.

3 hours ago, joeshmoe554 said:

A front-arc attack is a front-arc attack. I haven't seen anywhere that a "primary front-arc attack" is implied. The cards that say primary front-arc attack are referring to a primary weapon that uses the front-arc. The cards that only refer to a front-arc attack apply to all front-arc attacks whether the attack comes from a primary weapon or a special weapon. Both Fearless and Outmaneuver require a front-arc attack, but only Fearless actually requires that the attack come from the primary weapon.

Ah. Yup, you're right. Anything except a turret or front-full arc can be a V attack (incl missiles, cannons, and torpedoes, since those are front arc attacks (?)).

Can you tell me why FFG would include this following line in the RR?

"The turret arc indicator points toward one of the ship’s four standard arcs.
The standard arc that the turret arc indicator is pointing toward is a (turret sign) in
addition to still being a standard arc."

My interpretation of this was that a turret attack could be a V attack (since a V arc is a standard arc) if it faced forward, but the FAQ says that's wrong. What could this be clarifying (it just confuses me)?

Thanks!

I interpret that line to refer to the physical arc itself. For example if the turret indicator is pointing forward, then the arc created by extending the hashmarks at the 45 degree angles out to range 3 is both the front-arc and turret-arc.

Yah. The standard arcs are the front sides and back regardless of whether they're firing arcs.

It could really have done with some clearer symbology/terminology.

If, for instance, they'd called the standard arcs 'quadrants', and used empty V symbols for them, virtually all of this confusion could have been averted.