Because Krassis' ability states " you can perform *forward arc* special attacks from your *rear arc*" does that mean that if he fires a cannon/missile/torpedo backwards, it still counts as a forward arc attack, and still activates abilities like fearless and outmaneuver?

The 7 pages of discussion here mean it's unclear, but I'd say yes.

Note that it doesn't work with fearless due to the *primary* restriction.

No.

Krassis only changes the limitation on the secondary weapon, not on other abilities. In order to change abilities, it would probably read "you may treat your [rear arc] as your [forward arc]."

If an ability simply states "secondary weapon", "in arc" or "when you attack", they will trigger when Krassis uses the [rear arc] for a secondary weapon attack. Anything that specifies an arc — like outmaneuver — is still limited to that arc.

One person says yes and another person says no. This effectively sums up the entire discussion.

Basically, the interaction is unclear and FFG has not yet issued a statement on the matter.

Opsmason, imho, You're not right.

It does not change the limitation, as tie-sf does.

It allows you To perform front arc special attacks from your rear arc. It doesn'change anything in the weapon card.

If it had been worded "you may consider The front arc requirement as crear arc while performing especial attacks" ir wouldn't work.

And this is RAW.

You are performing an attack which has the front arc icon... There are faq's referring To this subject in The RR

Yeah, this was the same thought process that i had. Just looking to clarify

Just now, Txousman said:

Opsmason, imho, You're not right.

It does not change the limitation, as tie-sf does.

It allows you To perform front arc special attacks from your rear arc. It doesn'change anything in the weapon card.

If it had been worded "you may consider The front arc requirement as crear arc while performing especial attacks" ir wouldn't work.

And this is RAW.

You are performing an attack which has the front arc icon... There are faq's referring To this subject in The RR

there is an in dept discussion about this here:

in short, there has been quite a bit of confusion about this. after the tie/sf was relesed and we've come to the conclusion that some attacks can have a lot of different properties, there is nothing indicating a (front arc) attack cannot simultaneously be considered a (back arc) attack, among other things such as special, ordnance, cannon or what have you.

I think I've wound up in the "Yes Outmaneuver." It feels consistent with how a missile fired by a TIE/sf will be treated as a turret arc, which means that it'd trigger effects like Hotshot Gunner. Given Krassis' wording, the consistent ruling seems to be that the attack, even against a target in the rear arc, is still a front arc attack.

I think it's distasteful and kind of rules lawyerish, but I think it's correct for him to use Outmaneuver with rear special attacks.

I get what the argument is, but i don't agree that ability's like Outmaneuver work that way. As i interpret it, Krassis' ability changes which arc its performed in. I dont agree that its performing a 'front arc' attack from the rear arc. Its simply allowing attacks normally reserved to the front arc, to use the rear arc. Basically for him, hes adding a rear arc attack icon to special weapons. To me, that is the simplest, easiest explanation.

9 hours ago, Lyianx said:

I get what the argument is, but i don't agree that ability's like Outmaneuver work that way. As i interpret it, Krassis' ability changes which arc its performed in. I dont agree that its performing a 'front arc' attack from the rear arc. Its simply allowing attacks normally reserved to the front arc, to use the rear arc. Basically for him, hes adding a rear arc attack icon to special weapons. To me, that is the simplest, easiest explanation.

while that would certainly be an elegant solution, it's not consistent with krassiss wording.

his card states you can perform (front arc) special attacks from you (rear arc), not that you may treat the (front arc) requirement of special weapons as (back arc) or similar.

i do agree that it's maybe unintentional and not even very clear, but RAW, it works.

that said, maybe i should just go and look at zari bangel and scratch my head instead.

3 hours ago, meffo said:

his card states you can perform (front arc) special attacks from you (rear arc), not that you may treat the (front arc) requirement of special weapons as (back arc) or similar.    

It actually does…

Rules Reference pg 17

Special weapons have a combination of arc requirements , range requirements, attack value, and possibly other requirements. The arc icon indicates where the target needs to be in order to use this attack.

· Arc restrictions appear as arc icons listed to the left of the attack value. The arc restriction requires that the defender be in that arc of the attacker.

So really, that icon on special weapons is representing an arc requirement. So Krassis is effectively saying "You can perform [front arc requirement] special attacks from your [rear arc].

So the real question lies with the ability's like Outmaneuver.

Does the front arc icon translate to Front Arc Requirement, or Front Attack arc? I usually interpreted it as attack arc, but there can be an argument made that its front arc requirement.

It refers To The painted arc of The weapon, for example, kavil's skill works with a turret aiming front, but outmaneuver doesn't

There are examples of abilities that actually change a special weapon's type; the TIE/sf ship ability is explicit that the weapon's properties are treated in a different way. Not only does the Krassis ability fail to include language that alters the attack type, but it also clearly refers to the attack in question as a [front arc icon] attack, which is the specific thing that triggers Outmaneuver.

4 hours ago, Lyianx said:

Does the front arc icon translate to Front Arc Requirement, or Front Attack arc? I usually interpreted it as attack arc, but there can be an argument made that its front arc requirement.

It's worth considering FFG's FAQ answer at the back of the Rules Reference.

Q: Can ships that only use [turret] or [180 degree arc] attacks use effects that require the ship to perform a [front] attack? (i.e. Fearless, Outmaneuver)

A: No. Note the differences between the requirement of Fearless: “While you perform a [front] primary attack...”
and Punishing One:
“While you perform a primary attack, if the defender is in your [front]...”

A [front] attack uses the [front] 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]. (Rules Reference 1.03, FAQ, Arcs, p. 26)

So the symbol gets used for both, thus will need to draw context the words around the symbol. The two wordings which are most common are "[Front] attacks" and "ship in it's [Front]." Outmaneuver is "[Front] attacks" without a doubt. Krassis, best as can interpret, still treats the attack as a [Front] attack. Hrm. I'm getting a bit squishier on KT, but I still think Outmaneuver working is the most consistent way to read all the effects and rulings together.

//

The more and more I think about this, I'd love if FFG gave up on the distinction between [Front] attacks and attacks against ships in the [Front] arc. It just adds confusion, and also makes Veteran Turret Gunner significantly stronger on ships which can double-up [Front] and Turret arcs. It'd be a nerf to VTG Ys, Scurrgs, and MG-100. It might be a buff to VTG on non-double-front ships, since any change likely comes with a price reduction. It'd be a buff to Dengar (Fearless would get pretty sweet with his double-taps. Get in their face and boom them). It'd be a buff to anyone wanting to equip Outmaneuver on a turret ship (and it would make a few quickbuilds make more sense) or a ship with a 180 degree arc. It'd be a buff to folks using Heavy Laser Cannon with [front] arc effects in a way which I'd hope isn't a problem, but is a little scary.

There'd be an awkward wrinkle to work out with side-arc attacks against ships in your front arc, but on balance I think it'd be so much cleaner if FFG hadn't have made this distinction.

2 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

It's worth considering FFG's FAQ answer at the back of the Rules Reference.

Q: Can ships that only use [turret] or [180 degree arc] attacks use effects that require the ship to perform a [front] attack? (i.e. Fearless, Outmaneuver)

A: No. Note the differences between the requirement of Fearless: “While you perform a [front] primary attack...”
and Punishing One:
“While you perform a primary attack, if the defender is in your [front]...”

A [front] attack uses the [front] 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]. (Rules Reference 1.03, FAQ, Arcs, p. 26)

So the symbol gets used for both, thus will need to draw context the words around the symbol. The two wordings which are most common are "[Front] attacks" and "ship in it's [Front]." Outmaneuver is "[Front] attacks" without a doubt. Krassis, best as can interpret, still treats the attack as a [Front] attack. Hrm. I'm getting a bit squishier on KT, but I still think Outmaneuver working is the most consistent way to read all the effects and rulings together.

//

The more and more I think about this, I'd love if FFG gave up on the distinction between [Front] attacks and attacks against ships in the [Front] arc. It just adds confusion, and also makes Veteran Turret Gunner significantly stronger on ships which can double-up [Front] and Turret arcs. It'd be a nerf to VTG Ys, Scurrgs, and MG-100. It might be a buff to VTG on non-double-front ships, since any change likely comes with a price reduction. It'd be a buff to Dengar (Fearless would get pretty sweet with his double-taps. Get in their face and boom them). It'd be a buff to anyone wanting to equip Outmaneuver on a turret ship (and it would make a few quickbuilds make more sense) or a ship with a 180 degree arc. It'd be a buff to folks using Heavy Laser Cannon with [front] arc effects in a way which I'd hope isn't a problem, but is a little scary.

There'd be an awkward wrinkle to work   out with side-arc attacks against ships in your front arc, but on balance I think it'd be so much cleaner if FFG hadn't have made this distinction.

Seriously. I wish they'd created different symbols for attack type (front, bullseye, turret, etc) and attack location, like this:

8 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

It'd be a buff to anyone wanting to equip Outmaneuver  on a turret ship

haha, Thematically, thats a contradiction tho. Ships using a turret pointed anywhere but their front aren't outmaneuvering the other ship to get in firing position.. they are simply rotating their turret to aim it at them. I think, at least spiritually, (which i know carries little weight mechanically) the intent of Outmaneuver is to gain an advantage when you.. you know.. outmaneuver your target. If staying out of their firing arc was all that was needed for that, it wouldn't have the front arc requirement for you.

That said, I wouldn't necessarily be upset if it worked with Krassis' ability. Its not even the combo itself that bothers me.. only the interpretation of what his ability means, mechanically that would affect other similar abilities that sets a precedent for them to add confusion (if that makes sense).

Honestly, i really think this is just another victim of poor wording and mixing of terms. They seem to be in a bad habit of using multiple terms to mean the same thing or using the same term to mean multiple things. Its like they still dont realize how differently the community can interpret or read their own rules and abilities. I mean i get it, when you make something, its in your head what it should mean, and you dont see how it could be read differently.

36 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

haha, Thematically, thats a contradiction tho. Ships using a turret pointed anywhere but their front aren't outmaneuvering the other ship to get in firing position.. they are simply rotating their turret to aim it at them. I think, at least spiritually, (which i know carries little weight mechanically) the intent of Outmaneuver is to gain an advantage when you.. you know.. outmaneuver your target. If staying out of their firing arc was all that was needed for that, it wouldn't have the front arc requirement for you.

The turret ship would still need to be out of the enemy's firing arc (any active firing arc!), and have the enemy in the turret ship's front arc. Under such a rule, Outmaneuver would just care about position (out of the enemy's arc, enemy to your front), rather than what kind of weapon (front arc only, turret, 180 degree arc, bullseye). In current rules, it's a little strange that a Shadowcaster can Outmaneuver, but a Hounds Tooth or Millennium Falcon cannot, even if they were in the exact same position relative to an enemy ship. Now, I don't necessarily mind from a balance standpoint, but it'd certainly be cleaner with the rules if there were no difference between a front arc weapon and an attack against an enemy in your front arc.

6 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Seriously. I wish they'd created different symbols for attack type (front, bullseye, turret, etc) and attack location, like this:

That would work, too.

The way Outmaneuver is worded, it's referring to a front arc *weapon* attack, not a ship in your front arc. Krassis allows you to perform a front arc special *weapon* attack out your rear arc. A front arc *weapon* is still a front arc weapon even if it's fired out the rear. Therefore Outmaneuver works on Krassis. Note that this does not and cannot work with a turret weapon since a turret weapon is not a front arc weapon, even when it is fired out your front arc.

The key here is the difference between arc when used as a weapon restriction, and one where arc is used as a positional restriction. Outmaneuver is worded as a weapon restriction. Unless FFG makes an official ruling that this specific interaction goes against the rules as written we have to assume that it works.

https://xwing-miniatures-second-edition.fandom.com/wiki/Arc#Notes

WOOOHOOO 🥳

LET’S GO ANOTHER 7 PAGES!!!

Not this again!!!!!!!!!!

1 hour ago, feltipern1 said:

Not this again!!!!!!!!!!

I’m going to start another post about the difficulty of BB-8’s boost!

🥳 🥳