Interesting question that crossed my mind. If instead of 'this attack' these cards said 'a primary weapon attack' would y'all be arguing that snap shot/foresight were the only times the primary weapon could be used?

3 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Interesting question that crossed my mind. If instead of 'this attack' these cards said 'a primary weapon attack' would y'all be arguing that snap shot/foresight were the only times the primary weapon could be used?

What is your new card? Something like-

Foresight: " After an enemy ship executes a maneuver, you may spend 1 Force to perform a primary weapon attack against it as a bonus attack. "

What about that would suggest you don't get your primary weapon attack?

3 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

What is your new card? Something like-

Foresight: " After an enemy ship executes a maneuver, you may spend 1 Force to perform a primary weapon attack against it as a bonus attack. "

What about that would suggest you don't get your primary weapon attack?

The same thing that suggests you can't perform the bonus attack on Snap Shot or Foresight as a normal engagement-phase attack. it's literally the only difference other than the dice modification blocking, so why does one work, and the other not?

6 hours ago, Cartchan said:

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...

To be clear: as it is written now, I believe the Snap/Fore attacks are valid as the standard engagement attack option. In my response above I was referencing a quote that suggested an additional restriction to the card to make it bonus attack only, and suggested more streamlined ways to make that change.

Until it is announced otherwise, I will insist on using Snap/Fore during engagement and not stop my opponents from doing the same. With all the stink being raised about NPE, turret abuse, and over complication I do anticipate FFG coming down on the bonus-only side of the debate with a new rule. They hardly even waited for Nantex tractor-jutsu to hit the table before they nipped that combo out of existence.

6 hours ago, Cartchan said:

Double

6 hours ago, Cartchan said:

Triple

13 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

To be clear: as it is written now, I believe the Snap/Fore attacks are valid as the standard engagement attack option. In my response above I was referencing a quote that suggested an additional restriction to the card to make it bonus attack only, and suggested more streamlined ways to make that change.

Until it is announced otherwise, I will insist on using Snap/Fore during engagement and not stop my opponents from doing the same. With all the stink being raised about NPE, turret abuse, and over complication I do anticipate FFG coming down on the bonus-only side of the debate with a new rule. They hardly even waited for Nantex tractor-jutsu to hit the table before they nipped that combo out of existence.

My bad, I misunderstood your position. Sorry.

1 hour ago, thespaceinvader said:

The same thing that suggests you can't perform the bonus attack on Snap Shot or Foresight as a normal engagement-phase attack. it's literally the only difference other than the dice modification blocking, so why does one work, and the other not?

No it ins't the only difference. Our revised Foresight in this instance is not a secondary weapon. Has anyone argued you couldn't use some other secondary weapon or that you wouldn't get a primary in engagement if you Snap Shot or Foresight after a maneuver? Going back to where I started in all of this secondary weapons can have "possibly other requirements."

Look if we had

Foresight

Bullseye 2/No Range Bonus 1-2

After an enemy ship executes a maneuver, you may spend 1 Force to perform this attack as a bonus attack.

Bonus ATTACK: You may change one Focus result to a Hit result, your dice can not be modified otherwise.

What would you say you can do with that? Would that secondary weapon be in addition to your primary or would it be just a normal secondary weapon use?

1 hour ago, nitrobenz said:

Nantex tractor-jutsu

hehe. They they wen't going to have any of that.

41 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

No it ins't the only difference. Our revised Foresight in this instance is not a secondary weapon. Has anyone argued you couldn't use some other secondary weapon or that you wouldn't get a primary in engagement if you Snap Shot or Foresight after a maneuver? Going back to where I started in all of this secondary weapons can have "possibly other requirements."

Look if we had

Foresight

Bullseye 2/No Range Bonus 1-2

After an enemy ship executes a maneuver, you may spend 1 Force to perform this attack as a bonus attack.

Bonus ATTACK: You may change one Focus result to a Hit result, your dice can not be modified otherwise.

What would you say you can do with that? Would that secondary weapon be in addition to your primary or would it be just a normal secondary weapon use?

I would say that we don't have rules for that card phrasing yet, so I don't know, but I would assume based on what we know so far of the Huge Ship rules that it could be used as a bonus attack either at the trigger point, or during the engagement phase after a primary attack.

53 minutes ago, Cartchan said:

My bad, I misunderstood your position. Sorry.

No worries. Here I am criticising FFG for their lack of clarity and I can't clearly get my own point across 🤦‍♂️

I have edited my earlier post to hopefully add clarity, let me know if I made it worse!

21 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I would say that we don't have rules for that card phrasing yet, so I don't know, but I would assume based on what we know so far of the Huge Ship rules that it could be used as a bonus attack either at the trigger point, or during the engagement phase after a primary attack.

And I would assume that you need to meet the requirement and couldn't use it in engagement phase.

23 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I would say that we don't have rules for that card phrasing yet, so I don't know, but I would assume based on what we know so far of the Huge Ship rules that it could be used as a bonus attack either at the trigger point, or during the engagement phase after a primary attack.

It's also apparent that they intend for huge ships to get more than one bonus attack per round, which is clearly not allowed by current rules.

If the hypothetical Snap/Fore using the Bonus Attack header had existed I would hope that we would have found it clearer than what we got that it cannot be used as the regular attack. I would also hope that when FFG released the Huge ships with the accompanying rules update there would be a new line added to the regular Attack section saying that a Bonus Attack header can not be used as the regular attack during engagement, and then in the Huge ship rules there would be an exception to that saying that Huge ships may take as many bonus attacks as they have available during their normal engagement.

But that's all alternate history! With the cards that exist FFG is going to need to execute some mental gymnastics to convince me, without also contradicting some other rule, that Snap/Fore cannot be used as a standard attack. Although I do expect to see something like this hypothetical huge ship bonus attack rule in the next update around the time huge ships become available.

OK, so.

COnsider this phrasing:

Snap Shot

After an enemy ship executes a maneuver, you may perform an attack with an equipped [Torp] upgrade as a bonus attack, ignoring [Lock] requirements.

Would that stop you using equipped torpedoes any other way?

If not, why not?

What I'm trying to understand is what makes the attack on Snap/Foresight special, to you, such that it can't be used any other way, when the same phrasing for other attacks, wouldn't block their use any other way.

28 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

OK, so.

COnsider this phrasing:

Snap Shot

After an enemy ship executes a maneuver, you may perform an attack with an equipped [Torp] upgrade as a bonus attack, ignoring [Lock] requirements.

Would that stop you using equipped torpedoes any other way?

If not, why not?

What I'm trying to understand is what makes the attack on Snap/Foresight special, to you, such that it can't be used any other way, when the same phrasing for other attacks, wouldn't block their use any other way.

Same as our primary weapon alternate wording example. As far as I know nothing except the charges remaining and whether or not you have a target lock and whether or not you've had all the bonus attacks you're allowed limits how many times an equipped torpedo can be used.

As I've been saying all along Snap/Foresight are "special" because there is a condition presented before the ATTACK: header. There is no condition before any other secondary weapon. That Epic secondary weapon has a setup clarification but doesn't have any conditions. With every other secondary weapon ATTACK: or ATTACK {condition}: is first thing on the card. Energy Shell Charges ATTACK: is first. ACTION: is second. No conditions other than being able to attack or being able to take an action.

Now if Foresight were:

Foresight

Bullseye 2/No Range Bonus 1-2

ATTACK: Spend 1 Force. You may change one Focus result to a Hit result, your dice can not be modified otherwise.

Bonus ATTACK: After an enemy ship executes a maneuver, you may spend 1 Force to perform this attack as a bonus attack. You may change one Focus result to a Hit result, your dice can not be modified otherwise.

I'd say shoot away in the engagement phase.

*shrug* it's a logical position I guess.

I don't agree with it, but honestly, I could see it go either way, and my track record for FFG doing what I think is correct in ambiguous situations is not great for 2e.

2 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

It's also apparent that they intend for huge ships to get more than one bonus attack per round, which is clearly not allowed by current rules.

If the hypothetical Snap/Fore using the Bonus Attack header had existed I would hope that we would have found it clearer than what we got that it cannot be used as the regular attack. I would also hope that when FFG released the Huge ships with the accompanying rules update there would be a new line added to the regular Attack section saying that a Bonus Attack header can not be used as the regular attack during engagement, and then in the Huge ship rules there would be an exception to that saying that Huge ships may take as many bonus attacks as they have available during their normal engagement.

But that's all alternate history! With the cards that exist FFG is going to need to execute some mental gymnastics to convince me, without also contradicting some other rule, that Snap/Fore cannot be used as a standard attack. Although I do expect to see something like this hypothetical huge ship bonus attack rule in the next update around the time huge ships become available.

Yes. They have stated that Huge ships do not have a limit to how many bonus attacks they can take. But notice that each bonus attack card (thus far) has an energy cost, which is a different limiting factor. Also, As evident by PDB, Each "Bonus Attack" header is still under the restriction of once per round. They have also stated they can perform bonus attacks before or after their primary.


So even a huge ship with 9 energy can only use PDB's 4 times in a single round.

FAQ This section contains frequently asked questions and their answers. ARCS Q: Can ships that only use Turret Arcs or Full Ars attacks use effects that require the ship to perform a Standard Arc attack? (i.e. Fearless, Outmaneuver)

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

You cannot use a Turret only Primary Attack Ship with Snap Shot. Azatucks, A-Wings etc do not use a Standard Arc and therefore cannot benefit from Snap Shot.

On 10/2/2019 at 6:49 PM, eriedragon said:

FAQ This section contains frequently asked questions and their answers. ARCS Q: Can ships that only use Turret Arcs or Full Ars attacks use effects that require the ship to perform a Standard Arc attack? (i.e. Fearless, Outmaneuver)

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

You cannot use a Turret only Primary Attack Ship with Snap Shot. Azatucks, A-Wings etc do not use a Standard Arc and therefore cannot benefit from Snap Shot.

Look at the Snap Shot upgrade again and compare it to a missile, cannon or torpedo upgrade that fires in the front arc. Then re-read that FAQ ruling. For ease of reference:

Snap Shot has the symbol in the same exact location. It itself is a attack.

To illustrate the different stances, the wording does not need to be changed at all. Place the ATTACK section before the special trigger text and you have a fairly unequivocable green light to use it as an engagement phase attack.

The way they are actually ordered on the card is the crux of the matter.

Personally, since there is no clear "you may only perform this attack as a bonus attack" alongside "your dice cannot be modified", I believe the current card structure doesn't change anything, it just adds murk.

The trigger text refers to using "this attack". To me that suggests that 'an attack' is all it is and it can therefore be used in any circumstance in which an attack can be made, since the card contains no explicit restriction.

I can clearly see how the trigger text can be read as an overall requirement, but I think it's a stretch to be totally convinced either way.

Obviously needs FAQ.

FFG has officialy ruled that Snap Shot and Foresight can be used during the Engagement Phase as a normal special weapon attack. Per a new post :

Quote

Q: Can Snap Shot or Foresight be chosen as a special weapon to be used for a ship's attack during the Engagement Phase?

A: Yes. The phrase "after an enemy ship executes a maneuver, you may perform this attack against it as a bonus attack" allows the attack to be used as a bonus attack under the specified circumstances, but does not disqualify it from being used during the Engagement Phase.

Usually they dump a bunch of clarification posts at once, but there it is, one post for just this one little clarification. Makes this look pretty important for them to bother with making a single post!

5 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

Usually they dump a bunch of clarification posts at once, but there it is, one post for just this one little clarification. Makes this look pretty important for them to bother with making a single post!

Conflicting rulings from judges at worlds for day 1a (yes Engagement Phase) vs 1b and day 2 (no Engagement Phase) from what I heard, so it is warrented.