What the **** is going on???

8 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

What the **** is going on???

Argument over Talent slot special weapons. I think some are worried about Snap RZ-2s being able to attack in their front arc with the turret facing rearwards.

7 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Argument over Talent slot special weapons. I think some are worried about Snap RZ-2s being able to attack in their front arc with the turret facing rearwards.

Mh. I have a different question.

Does Snapshout finally allow the RZ2 to equip outmaneuver, a talent it previously could not equip due to the fact that it could not perform a primary arc attack, but with Snapshot it can?

12 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Mh. I have a different question.

Does Snapshout finally allow the RZ2 to equip outmaneuver, a talent it previously could not equip due to the fact that it could not perform a primary arc attack, but with Snapshot it can?

Outmaneuver doesn't require the attack be a primary attack, attacks with special weapons that have the like

and

work for

So technically they've always been able to, just needed to equip a front arc missile. That said, Snap Shot does work with Outmaneuver, though the pairing is 14pts and 2 talent slots total.

3 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Outmaneuver doesn't require the attack be a primary attack, attacks with special weapons that have the like

and

work for

So technically they've always been able to, just needed to equip a front arc missile. That said, Snap Shot does work with Outmaneuver, though the pairing is 14pts and 2 talent slots total.

Intriguing.

And stupid tbh. But that's not a diss on you, just how FFG writes things. Really should be "When you perform an attack in your primary arc", not, "When you perform a primary arc attack". Daffy s**t on their part. OUtmaneuver would be good on RZ2s.

9 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Intriguing.

And stupid tbh. But that's not a diss on you, just how FFG writes things. Really should be "When you perform an attack in your primary arc", not, "When you perform a primary arc attack". Daffy s**t on their part. OUtmaneuver would be good on RZ2s.

Minor correction, what you're calling "primary arc" the rules define as "front arc".

39 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

What the **** is going on???

There is disagreement as to whether the first paragraph of text on Snap Shot and Foresight constitute a requirement that must be met before one can perform the attack. I am in the minority saying that it is a requirement. Most others think it can be ignored.

I await word from on high of what is so.

1 hour ago, Frimmel said:

Most others think it can be ignored.

Not ignored. Just not relevant during engagement phase. A more accurate (and less insulting) way of putting it is this.

You (and the minority, as you put it) think its a requirement to use the weapon at all times.
Others think its a requirement only for the bonus attack USING that weapon.

On 9/21/2019 at 3:10 PM, Lyianx said:

Not ignored. Just not relevant during engagement phase. A more accurate (and less insulting) way of putting it is this.

You (and the minority, as you put it) think its a requirement to use the weapon at all times.
Others think its a requirement only for the bonus attack USING that weapon .

Which the wording of the card clearly states. Unambiguously, by stating “may perform this attack as a bonus attack”, with the execute maneuver being the condition for the bonus attack.

Indeed. The concept of the attack and the bonus attack you can get with it are clearly distinct on the card itself...

Or the wording is describing the only way to perform the attack and by clearly labeling it a "bonus attack" indicate that by using it you don't give up your primary attack in the engagement phase. No other secondary weapon besides Foresight and Snap Shot has text before the ATTACK: header.

Why does everyone want this to work the way it did in first edition? Why do you want this to be usable on turret ships that don't have their turret in the front arc? (There is an entire other failure of these upgrades in my opinion.) It seems that every one of these rules questions lately is a bunch of folks trying to drag first edition combo-wing or first edition way it worked into second edition.

2 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

Or the wording is describing the only way to perform the attack and by clearly labeling it a "bonus attack" indicate that by using it you don't give up your primary attack in the engagement phase. No other secondary weapon besides Foresight and Snap Shot has text before the ATTACK: header.

Why does everyone want this to work the way it did in first edition? Why do you want this to be usable on turret ships that don't have their turret in the front arc? (There is an entire other failure of these upgrades in my opinion.) It seems that every one of these rules questions lately is a bunch of folks trying to drag first edition combo-wing or first edition way it worked into second edition.

I don't care either way.

I expect it will work that way, because FFG have largely not changed most of these kinds of interactions when they've eventually ruled on them.

4 hours ago, Frimmel said:

Or the wording is describing the only way to perform the attack and by clearly labeling it a "bonus attack" indicate that by using it you don't give up your primary attack in the engagement phase. No other secondary weapon besides Foresight and Snap Shot has text before the ATTACK: header.

Why does everyone want this to work the way it did in first edition? Why do you want this to be usable on turret ships that don't have their turret in the front arc? (There is an entire other failure of these upgrades in my opinion.) It seems that every one of these rules questions lately is a bunch of folks trying to drag first edition combo-wing or first edition way it worked into second edition.

Agreed with @thespaceinvader , I don't really care but I'd like to know the ruling for games I play or TO. I will likely not use it. If it was only capable of being used as a bonus attack, I imagine we would have seen the "BONUS ATTACK:" header or verbiage that prohibits its use as a normal attack. When we look at the whole "do what the card says, not what it doesn't", the card says you can perform it as a bonus attack. Then a separate clause, and the attack header. It also still says it's an attack, like every other special weapon attack in the game that applies during normal engagement. Nothing on it reads as a restriction or other requirement unless performing it as a bonus.

On 9/20/2019 at 9:55 PM, Ysenhal said:

On 9/24/2019 at 8:38 AM, Frimmel said:

Or the wording is describing the only way to perform the attack and by clearly labeling it a "bonus attack"

Except its not labeled as a bonus attack. The Point-Defense Battery shown above, is clearly labeled as a 'bonus attack'. Meaning that weapon can ONLY be used as a bonus attack, since it has no "Attack:" header, which Snap Shot does have.

If Snap Shot's header was "Bonus Attack:" I feel certain you'd all be arguing you could make your primary and Snap Shot in the engagement phase as well as being allowed the after an enemy maneuver aspect.

And as to point defense battery. Huge ships get any number of bonus attacks. Labeling this a bonus attack seems clearly intended as a means of making it clear it isn't your primary and that it happens in engagement phase since there aren't any triggers on it.

23 hours ago, Frimmel said:

If Snap Shot's header was "Bonus Attack:" I feel certain you'd all be arguing you could make your primary and Snap Shot in the engagement phase as well as being allowed the after an enemy maneuver aspect.

...

Impossible to know what might have been...

I would like to think that if Snap Shot had been released as the first card in the game with the Bonus Attack header I would have assumed that means it can not be selected as the weapon for the attack given when engaging normally.

I probably would have still argued in favor of alternate triggers for it though such as Han Solo (Rebel Gunner).

On 9/25/2019 at 2:48 PM, Frimmel said:

If Snap Shot's header was "Bonus Attack:" I feel certain you'd all be arguing you could make your primary and Snap Shot in the engagement phase as well as being allowed the after an enemy maneuver aspect.

And as to point defense battery. Huge ships get any number of bonus attacks. Labeling this a bonus attack seems clearly intended as a means of making it clear it isn't your primary and that it happens in engagement phase since there aren't any triggers on it.

It would depend on what other wording was with it. Typically bonus attacks have to be triggered by something. In the case of PDB's, they are triggered by spending energy. If the ONLY thing that was changed in the Snap Shot's text was "Bonus Attack" instead of "Attack", then no. We wouldn't be arguing that, as it would be clear it could only be performed as a bonus attack.

That said, It Would still be legal for any other abilities granting a bonus attack that do not limit what weapon is used, such as Chewbacca.


And yes, huge ships do not have a hard limit on bonus attacks. While all other ships have a hard limit of 1 bonus attack. That really isn't relevant. The ability to grant bonus attacks that has PDB could work on smaller ships. But 3 factors prevent this, on purpose.
1. smaller ships are limited to 1 bonus attack so they could only trigger one of those bonus attacks.
2. The bonus attack require energy, which smaller ships do not have.
3. Smaller ships do not have that upgrade slot.

I know that all seems obvious, but my point is the upgrade granting bonus attacks isnt strictly a huge ship thing. If FFG wants to, they can make a card similar to that, where smaller ships can use it. But given the environment those ships are played in, this could become overpowered without some cost to it, which is why all abilities that Do grant bonus attacks, have conditions (ie chewie needing friendly ships to be destroyed).

Finally, yes, PDB is only a bonus attack weapon, because it has no Attack: header on it, so it cannot be used for a normal attack. Also, yes, there are no triggers on it so PDB (by itself) cannot fire outside of engagement phase (keeping in mind there could be future upgrades that allow this).

17 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

1. smaller ships are limited two 1 bonus attack so they could only trigger one of those bonus attacks.

Currently. There is the possibility of an upgrade, pilot or ship ability that breaks this coming out sometime since the cards overrule the Rules Reference (thus the 1 bonus attack per turn restriction can be ignored by an ability if the ability specifically states it permits exceeding 1/turn).

20 hours ago, Hiemfire said:

Currently. There is the possibility of an upgrade, pilot or ship ability that breaks this coming out sometime since the cards overrule the Rules Reference (thus the 1 bonus attack per turn restriction can be ignored by an ability if the ability specifically states it permits exceeding 1/turn).

Well true. I was speaking sticky from the rules. Card abilities always have the option to break any of those rules, but they (usually) always specifically state that they do.

Also, i used the wrong 'to' lol whoops. Corrected.

On 9/27/2019 at 3:08 PM, Lyianx said:

It would depend on what other wording was with it.

This entire thread you've been arguing that wording doesn't matter. 🤦‍♂️

I believe Frimmel's reading to be correct. All of those conditions must be met in order for it to trigger, and that neither Snap Shot nor Foresight can be used in anything other than the Activation phase when all conditions are met.

18 hours ago, John_McCullough said:

I believe Frimmel's reading to be correct. All of those conditions must be met in order for it to trigger, and that neither Snap Shot nor Foresight can be used in anything other than the Activation phase when all conditions are met.

If it was the intention of the game developers, the wording would have been something like:

" You can only perform this attack after an enemy ship executes a maneuver. Treat it as a bonus attack."

On 10/1/2019 at 7:04 AM, Cartchan said:

If it was the intention of the game developers, the wording w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶[should] have been something like:

" You can only perform this attack after an enemy ship executes a maneuver. Treat it as a bonus attack."

Corrected that for you FFG is not known for their foresight in writing new cards for X-wing, so I don't expect that they would have anticipated this argument if their intent was to only allow bonus attacks here.

Personally, [if it is their intent to limit Snap/Fore to bonus attacks] I would like to see Snap/Foresight hard errata'd with a Bonus Attack header, alternatively [if it's not going to be limited] I'd be happy with an official confirmation that all Attack headers can be used for the normal attack of engagement or errata in a line like you suggested. What I really anticipate [and dread] though is a convoluted explanation saying these cannot be used for the normal attack in the "Official Rulings" thread that invalidates other cards/rules or raises a bunch of additional questions, then in the next Rules update we get a new/revised rule regarding bonus attacks. (See Paige/Deathfire thread and most recent rules update for an example of what I'm talking about)

That's a little sarcastic of me, but I really have very little faith in the writers to anticipate alternate interpretations of new mechanics in this game.

4 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

alternatively I'd be happy with an official confirmation that all Attack headers can be used for the normal attack of engagement

I mean... Sure.. but.. it feels pretty cut and dry as it is.

Quote

Special weapons appear as “ Attack :” headers in card text. They provide additional types of attacks other than a ship’s primary weapon(s).

Choose Weapon: The attacking player chooses one of the attacker’s primary or special weapons.

Some attacks also have special requirements listed in parentheses after the header.

I've still yet to be convinced you cannot use it during the engagement phase, especially given how limited it is. Really, the only thing they can or need to do is clarify what a special weapon is by limiting what upgrade slots qualify as special weapons, and then listing all of them (turret, cannon, torpedo, missile). Keeping in mind they have already qualified upgrades as weapons outside of those (See "Hot-Shot" Blaster in 1E). But i dont see them really doing that as that pinholes them into Only being able to use those ions, or having to change it again in the future.

It it turns out that Snapshot is too powerful using it as a main attack during engagement (unlikely), they can always adjust the cost of it to reflect that.

8 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

Corrected that for you FFG is not known for their foresight in writing new cards for X-wing, so I don't expect that they would have anticipated this argument if their intent was to only allow bonus attacks here.

Personally, I would like to see Snap/Foresight hard errata'd with a Bonus Attack header, alternatively I'd be happy with an official confirmation that all Attack headers can be used for the normal attack of engagement or errata in a line like you suggested. What I really anticipate though is a convoluted explanation saying these cannot be used for the normal attack in the "Official Rulings" thread that invalidates other cards/rules or raises a bunch of additional questions, then in the next Rules update we get a new/revised rule regarding bonus attacks. (See Paige/Deathfire thread and most recent rules update for an example of what I'm talking about)

That's a little sarcastic of me, but I really have very little faith in the writers to anticipate alternate interpretations of new mechanics in this game.

So your argument justifying that Snap Shot can not be used as a normal attack is: "Devs can not write." ?

I can understand that you would prefer Snap Shot to be restricted to the activation phase. But here you are grasping at straws...