8 minutes ago, Cassan said:

so yes, i say the attack arc matters for outmaneuver. not the restriction on the special weapon.

especially in this case where trelix lets you perform an attack in the standard rear arc, ignoring the "[front arc] attack arc"-restriction.

See this is where you are wrong. the YV-666 cannot use outmanoeuvre on it's primary weapon as it simply cannot perform [Front Arc] attacks with it, the arc you actually use for the attack it irrelevant, only the arc printed on the weapon.

16 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

If it's referencing only the standard arc you're using while performing the attack and not the arc on the card why wouldn't a turret pointed in the correct direction trigger it.

outmaneuver is NOT referencing the standard arc. it is referencing the attack arc. there is a difference! see chapter "arc" and "attack arc" in the rr.

when attacking with e.g. an ion cannon turret, the attacker uses the [turret arc] attack arc. so outmaneuver will NOT trigger.

when attacking with the auzituk primary, the attacker uses the [full arc] attack arc. so outmaneuver will NOT trigger.

also see faq-section of the rr pg. 23:

It's those FAQ rulings that make me think the attack is a front arc attack even if it's used out of the back arc and therefore works with outmaneuver; what part of that are you saying suggests it works the other way?

5 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

See this is where you are wrong. the YV-666 cannot use outmanoeuvre on it's primary weapon as it simply cannot perform [Front Arc] attacks with it, the arc you actually use for the attack it irrelevant, only the arc printed on the weapon.

i am not wrong. the yv-666 has a [full arc] attack arc restriction. when performing an attack with the yv-666 primary weapon the attacker uses the [full arc] attack arc. the attack arc you are using is not irrelevant because that is what outmaneuver refers to. thats why outmaneuver does NOT trigger with the yv-666 primary attack.

btw. the auzituk example above by me is just the same.

Just now, MockingBird ME said:

It'  s those F  AQ ruling   s  that make me think the attack is a front arc attack even if it's used out of the back arc and therefore works with outmaneuver; what part of that are you saying suggests it works the other way?

what do you mean by " those F  AQ ruling   s" exactly?

the faq snippet above answers your question why turrets or full arc attacks will NOT work with outmaneuver/fearless/..

additionally it clarifies the difference between an "arc" and an "attack arc" with the veteran turret gunner example.

I mean, effectively you are saying that Krassis' ability causes the weapon to be used as a [rear arc] attack in place of a [front arc] attack, right?

Which I can see as being a plausible ruling from FFG. But as it is now there's no replacement language (e.g. "instead of") and thus currently no way to conclusively argue that the attack in question is not a [front arc] attack, especially when the language on the card specifically refers to it as a [front arc] attack.

2 minutes ago, Cassan said:

what do you mean by " those F  AQ ruling   s" exactly?

specifically this line: "A <front arc> attack uses the <front arc> icon above the attack value as shown on its ship card. This is different from an attack that is performed against a ship in it’s <front arc>."

and Krassis states "you can perform <front arc> special attacks from your <rear arc>." but does not make them rear arc attacks. along with outmanuver stating "when you perform a <front arc> attack." and not 'an attack against a ship in your <front arc>.

It is exactly because they say there is a difference between a front arc attack and an attack against a ship in your front arc that lets this combination work.

12 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

It is exactly because they say there is a difference between a front arc attack and an attack against a ship in your front arc that lets this combination work.

yes, there is a difference between "[front arc] attack arc" and "attacking the defender in your [front standard arc]".

example 1: if you attack with a heavy laser cannon (which has a restriction to the "[bullseye arc] attack arc"), you DO attack someone in your [front standard arc].

example 2: if you attack with a turret pointing to the [front standard arc], you do NOT attack using the [front arc] attack arc. you DO use the [turret] attack arc (thats why kavil gets the extra dice when attacking with a turret pointing to the front).

BUT: outmaneuver does NOT refer to a standard arc. it refers to an attack arc. and so does trelix when his cards refers to special attacks that are normally restricted by the [front arc] attack arc.

it does NOT say: "you can perform special attacks against defenders in your [rear standard arc]"

it DOES say: "you can perform special attacks FROM your [rear arc] attack arc. thats the reason why outmaneuver does NOT trigger. you are NOT using the [front arc] attack arc.

8 minutes ago, Cassan said:

it DOES say: "you can perform special attacks FROM your [rear arc] attack arc. thats the reason why outmaneuver does NOT trigger. you are NOT using the [front arc] attack arc.

It doesn't ever say that those attacks are no longer <front arc> attacks. Nore does it say that are <rear arc> attacks, only that you may perform them from your back arc. If it said you may perform <front arc> special attacks as if they were <rear arc> special attacks I'd agree with you but it doesn't, it says "you may perform <front arc> special attacks from your <rear arc>"

12 minutes ago, Cassan said:

yes, there is a difference between "[front arc] attack arc" and "attacking the defender in your [front standard arc]".

example 1: if you attack with a heavy laser cannon (which has a restriction to the "[bullseye arc] attack arc"), you DO attack someone in your [front standard arc].

example 2: if you attack with a turret pointing to the [front standard arc], you do NOT attack using the [front arc] attack arc. you DO use the [turret] attack arc (thats why kavil gets the extra dice when attacking with a turret pointing to the front).

BUT: outmaneuver does NOT refer to a standard arc. it refers to an attack arc. and so does trelix when his cards refers to special attacks that are normally restricted by the [front arc] attack arc.

it does NOT say: "you can perform special attacks against defenders in your [rear standard arc]"

it DOES say: "you can perform special attacks FROM your [rear arc] attack arc. thats the reason why outmaneuver does NOT trigger. you are NOT using the [front arc] attack arc.

Again the text on Outmanuver is

Quote

While you perform a [Front Arc] attack

If we go by your examples

Example 1, Yup you're performing a [Bullseye Arc] attack and the defender is in your [Front Arc] but you are not performing a [Front Arc] attack so Outmanoeuvre does not trigger.

Example 2 Again you're not performing a [Front Arc] attack which is all Outmanoeuvre cares about so outmanoeuvre does not trigger.

Do you agree with both of those examples, that Outmanoeuvre doesn't work in either case?

@AramoroA yes, of course i agree. thats what i said a few posts above.

2 hours ago, MockingBird ME said:

It doesn't ever say that those attacks are no longer <front arc> attacks.

no, it doesnt say that. what it does say is: "you can perform attacks from your [rear arc]". and what that means is described above..

2 hours ago, MockingBird ME said:

Nore does it say that are <rear arc> attacks

true, but no special weapon card says that explicitly. the cards just show the attack arc restriction.

what is says is - again - "you can perform attacks from your [rear arc]". see above.

im sorry, but i wont make the same arguments again.

1 hour ago, Cassan said:

@AramoroA yes, of course i agree. thats what i said a few posts above.

So following from that ,you can see that this case is different from those. The arc the defender is in is unimportant as with those examples, just the arc on the weapon matters, which in this case is a front arc.

@AramoroA yes, this case is different. i was answering to @MockingBird ME to clarify the difference between "arc" and "attack arc".

so back to the original question: it is the attack arc that is used when performing the trelix-rear-attack which matters.

and i repeat: just because a special weapon has an attack arc restriction, doesnt mean you have to use that arc while performing an attack, because trelix allows you to perform the attack from another attack arc (in this case the [rear arc] attack arc).

You haven't really shown why it's different though.

Heavy Laser Cannon, the arc on the weapon matters , but in this case you're saying it doesn't. There's no real concept for the arc the attack was performed in for any of the other rules so why this one?

A couple questions that may help answer the situation for people:

1. Does a special weapon merely indicate the required location of the attack (forward-facing arc, turret, bullseye, etc), or is it a definition of the attack arc of that weapon?
2. Does Outmaneuver care about the location of the attack , or the defined attack arc (front arc attack), or do both elements need to be true?
3. Does Krassis Trelix change the location of the attack , or the defined attack arc , or both , of "Front Arc Attack" weapons?

I know my interpretation of all three questions, given the various rulings throughout the RRG and the Forum Official Rulings thread, but at this point, it'd just be another voice piling onto the argument. Maybe, asking these questions about the situation will help clarify the answer for other people.

6 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

A couple questions that may help answer the situation for people:

1. Does a special weapon merely indicate the required location of the attack (forward-facing arc, turret, bullseye, etc), or is it a definition of the attack arc of that weapon?
2. Does Outmaneuver care about the location of the attack , or the defined attack arc (front arc attack), or do both elements need to be true?
3. Does Krassis Trelix change the location of the attack , or the defined attack arc , or both , of "Front Arc Attack" weapons?

I know my interpretation of all three questions, given the various rulings throughout the RRG and the Forum Official Rulings thread, but at this point, it'd just be another voice piling onto the argument. Maybe, asking these questions about the situation will help clarify the answer for other people.

This is a good way of summing it up and making sure people are on the same page, so we can find the crux of the disagreement.

Personally I think the difference in interpretations lies with q3, as the answers to the other 2 are addressed within the rules/faq/official rulings thread. I have a strong opinion on the answer to q3, but as 'perform attacks from ' (in the manner used in Krassis's card) is not really defined well anywhere, it's just my interpretation so I could very well be wrong.

22 hours ago, AramoroA said:

There's no real concept for the arc the attack was performed in for any of the other rules so why this one?

There is a concept and its called "attack arc". See rr above.

20 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Does a special weapon merely indicate the required location of the attack (forward-facing arc, turret, bullseye, etc), or is it a definition of the attack arc of that weapon?

the attack symbol on a weapon is defined in the rr as a restriction of the usable attack arcs.

20 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Does Outmaneuver care about the location of the attack , or the defined attack arc (front arc attack), or do both elements need to be true?

outmaneuver cares about the used attack arc.

20 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Does Krassis Trelix change the location of the attack , or the defined attack arc , or both , o  f "Front Arc Attack" weapons?

trelix ability softens the attack arc restriction by allowing the use of the [rear arc] attack arc in addition the printed [front arc] attack arc.

7 minutes ago, Cassan said:

There is a concept and its called "attack arc". See rr above.

And the relevant rule to this are in the FAQ in the RR.

A [Front Arc ] attack uses the [Front Arc] icon above the attack value as shown on its ship card. This is different from an attack that is performed against a ship in it’s [Front Arc].

This is in the ruling specifically about Outmanoeuvre, it cares about the symbol printed on the card not the arc the attack was made from.

@AramoroA i dont get your point..

being in the front standard arc is not relevant for this issue here.

about outmaneuver: this card does not care about printed restrictions on a special weapon. it cares about the attack arc used. in most cases this is just the same, just not with trelix.

1 minute ago, Cassan said:

@AramoroA true, but i dont get your point..

being in the front standard arc is not relevant for this issue here.

Outmanoeuvre checks to see if you performed a [Front Arc] Attack and as per the FAQ entry that is based on the icon printed on the card. An Ion Cannon is a [Front Arc] Attack, Krassis lets you perform that in his rear attack arc, but the icon on the card is still a [Front Arc] Attack.

of course the icon is still a [front arc] attack arc. because it is printed.. and it describes a restriction. this restriction is still valid, but with trelix you are allowed to use another attack arc.

e.g. take a ship with multiple attack arc icons like asajj. she can use the [front arc] attack arc or the [turret arc] attack arc while attacking with her primary weapon.

she can not use any other attack arcs. the attack arc restrictions are a whitelist.

46 minutes ago, Cassan said:

of course the icon is still a [front arc] attack arc. because it is printed.. and it describes a restriction. this restriction is still valid, but with trelix you are allowed to use another attack arc.

And as per the FAQ what outmanoeuvre is looking for is that [Front Arc] icon. It doesn't ask what your attack arc was or anything like that, it asks what arc was on the weapon you used.