I was told this evening that outmaneuver does not work on the nantex because it only has a bullseye arc in the front rather than a normal firing arc

Why is it that outmaneuver won't trigger in the bullseye arc? I understand why it won't work for the rotating arc even when it's in the front, but outmaneuver still triggers on other ships with normal front arcs even if their shot is in their bullseye arc as well

6 minutes ago, executor said:

I was told this evening that outmaneuver does not work on the nantex because it only has a bullseye arc in the front rather than a normal firing arc

Why is it that outmaneuver won't trigger in the bullseye arc? I understand why it won't work for the rotating arc even when it's in the front, but outmaneuver still triggers on other ships with normal front arcs even if their shot is in their bullseye arc as well

A bullseye arc primary isn't a front arc weapon. Outmaneuver requires a front arc weapon to trigger.

Nantex performs attack, not attack Outmaneuver refers to.

Just now, Ryfterek said:

Nantex performs attack, not attack Outmaneuver refers to.

Specifically, a Nantex can (normally) only perform a bullseye or turret primary attack. While both may be attacks against targets inside the attacker's front arc, neither is defined as a "front arc weapon."

HOWEVER. If the Nantex in question happens to have two talent slots open, it COULD take Snap Shot (which is a front arc weapon) alongside Outmaneuver, and gain the benefits of one for the other. It's expensive and only questionably useful, but it is technically an option.

Thx guys

On 9/27/2019 at 12:15 AM, Hiemfire said:

A bullseye arc primary isn't a front arc weapon. Outmaneuver requires a front arc weapon to trigger.

Thank you, your explanation makes since....

However, omg this is one of the dumbest interactions there is. The purpose of outmaneuver is to award the pilot for, you know, out flying the opponent. Nantex has a much narrower front firing arc, which should be even easier to get out of.

Sorry for the rant.

20 hours ago, Ccwebb said:

Thank you, your explanation makes since....

However, omg this is one of the dumbest interactions there is. The purpose of outmaneuver is to award the pilot for, you know, out flying the opponent. Nantex has a much narrower front firing arc, which should be even easier to get out of.

Sorry for the rant.

The idea isn't for the opponent to get out of your arc, but for you to get out of theirs while flying at them, but i agree this should include the bullseye and turrets pointed forward. Ideally, it should just be checking to see if the target is in your front arc when you attack, and that's it. This would cover attacking with the bullseye, turrets pointed forward, and full arc weapons. *shrug*

On 9/30/2019 at 7:22 AM, Lyianx said:

The idea isn't for the opponent to get out of your arc, but for you to get out of theirs while flying at them, but i agree this should include the bullseye and turrets pointed forward. Ideally, it should just be checking to see if the target is in your front arc when you attack, and that's it. This would cover attacking with the bullseye, turrets pointed forward, and full arc weapons. *shrug*

Almost, there would be edge cases where the turret is pointed sideways but the target is both in the side and front arc. I agree that its probably not a big deal if it was just an attack against a target in your front arc, but oh well.

It's speculation on my part, but I think they wrote Outmaneuver the way they did to specifically make it NOT work for bullseye weapons, which tend to be very potent attacks for their cost. Given the cost of outmaneuver, though, it seems reasonable that wording the card to simply reference the location of the enemy, rather than the defined attack arc of the weapon, would have worked just fine.

Except then you couldn't Outmaneuver out the back with Krassis Trelix...

56 minutes ago, SirToastsalot said:

Almost, there would be edge cases where the turret is pointed sideways but the target is both in the side and front arc. I agree that its probably not a big deal if it was just an attack against a target in your front arc, but oh well.

I mean, thats actually kinda hard to do really, so i dont think id be bothered if that happened every once and a while. But good luck flying your ship to specifically trigger it that way

It also doesn't work with 180degree arcs like the YV-666 or Wookie Fighter, but yah that's the cost of them trying to limit things I suppose.

It should be theoretically possible, given the currently questionable way in which arcs and attacks are differentiated, to use Outmaneuver when performing a turret arc attack out the Nantex front arc, though I could be wrong.

1 minute ago, feltipern1 said:

It should be theoretically possible, given the currently questionable way in which arcs and attacks are differentiated, to use outmaneuver when performing a turret arc attack out the Nantex front arc, though I could be wrong.

you are wrong, yes. the turret weapon of the nantex does not have the (front arc) symbol, but the (turret arc) symbol. therefore, it is always a (turret arc) attack and never a (front arc) attack, even if the ship you're firing it on is in your (front arc) and the (turret arc) is pointing forwards.

1 hour ago, feltipern1 said:

It should be theoretically possible, given the currently questionable way in which arcs and attacks are differentiated, to use outmaneuver when performing a turret arc attack out the Nantex front arc, though I could be wrong.

While front arcs can be turret arcs, in addition to front arcs, the reverse is not true. Turret arcs can not be front arcs (or side arcs, or rear arcs, or full arcs, or bullseye arcs) in addition to being a turret arc.

1 hour ago, feltipern1 said:

It should be theoretically possible, given the currently questionable way in which arcs and attacks are differentiated, to use outmaneuver when performing a turret arc attack out the Nantex front arc, though I could be wrong.

🤨 What is questionable about the use of pictographs to represent key concepts?

= Front Arc

= Rear Arc

= Bullseye Arc

= Left Arc

= Right Arc

= Full Front Arc

= Full Rear Arc

= Turret Arc

With the current exception of Full Rear Arc and the side arcs this is the limit of possible attack types, sub-divided in to primary and the various special attacks.

People need to start looking at the cards themselves to determine the attack type, not where the target is located.

Regardless of the arc it is pointed into, an attack from a is still a attack.

To make this 100% clear in case there are still questions--RRG p.26 (the very first section under FAQ) explains specifically why turret arcs and full 180 arcs cannot be used with Outmaneuver.

23 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

While front arcs can be turret arcs, in addition to front arcs, the reverse is not true. Turret arcs can not be front arcs (or side arcs, or rear arcs, or full arcs, or bullseye arcs) in addition to being a turret arc.

See, this is what I mean by questionable way in which arcs and attacks are differentiated. It makes sense that a turret arc is a turret arc, but there are cards that allow you to make turret arc attacks out the front arc - and which use the front arc symbol. All I'm saying is that it's inconsistently applied, because there've been threads arguing that Outmaneuver can be used out the rear arc (Krassis Trellix being the poster child), that Snap Shot attacks are front arc attacks and can be made even when the ship in question doesn't have a front arc attack normally, and that turret arcs when facing to the front arc (Dengar) allow return fire - out the front arc . Just to be clear, I'm aware that turret arc attacks, when they use the turret arc symbol, are always going to be turret arcs, but what bothers me is the complications that have arisen from the rules debates on these things that have gone on for pages. I play turrets as turrets, front arcs as front arcs, and tend to use upgrades that cause rules interactions headaches as straightforwardly as possible. For example, I will only ever use Outmaneuver on a ship that has a front arc attack or a special weapon that can make a front-arc attack, and which therefore can most explicitly trigger the ability. If a ship has a turret primary, I use it as a turret is intended to be used - an attack that can be directed to other arcs than the front one.

18 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

🤨 What is questionable about the use of pictographs to represent key concepts?

= Front Arc

= Rear Arc

= Bullseye Arc

= Left Arc

= Right Arc

= Full Front Arc

= Full Rear Arc

= Turret Arc

With the current exception of Full Rear Arc and the side arcs this is the limit of possible attack types, sub-divided in to primary and the various special attacks.

People need to start looking at the cards themselves to determine the attack type, not where the target is located.

Regardless of the arc it is pointed into, an attack from a is still a attack.

All of these pictographs are wonderfully clear; they make sense and I'm happy to recognize that they indicate attack directionality. I have no problem with their use on ships. As I mentioned above, the cards that confuse me are the ones that ambiguously apply the pictographs, which should be ludicrously simple. Using "front arc" and " " interchangeably, even when they're not always intended to be used as such, is one big thing that I take issue with. As, again, has been mentioned numerous times in numerous threads, the technical writing on the cards can definitely improve.

On the upside, @Hiemfire , I really like the clear layout above. I've had to copy and paste the symbols from cards - where did yours come from?

On 10/1/2019 at 1:29 PM, SirToastsalot said:

Almost, there would be edge cases where the turret is pointed sideways but the target is both in the side and front arc. I agree that its probably not a big deal if it was just an attack against a target in your front arc, but oh well.

I've only flown Dengar in three games, and that came up twice!

17 minutes ago, feltipern1 said:

All of these pictographs are wonderfully clear; they make sense and I'm happy to recognize that they indicate attack directionality. I have no problem with their use on ships. As I mentioned above, the cards that confuse me are the ones that ambiguously apply the pictographs, which should be ludicrously simple. Using "front arc" and " " interchangeably, even when they're not always intended to be used as such, is one big thing that I take issue with. As, again, has been mentioned numerous times in numerous threads, the technical writing on the cards can definitely improve.

On the upside, @Hiemfire , I really like the clear layout above. I've had to copy and paste the symbols from cards - where did yours come from?

So I can't find any card that says "front arc". I think every time they refer to an arc at all they use a picture indicating the arc. The only exceptions I can find are when they refer to firing arc. I actually think the technical writing on outmaneuver was intentional, they don't want turret attacks and other types of attack arcs to trigger on outmaneuver.

16 minutes ago, feltipern1 said:

1. It makes sense that a turret arc is a turret arc, but there are cards that allow you to make turret arc attacks out the front arc - and which use the front arc symbol.

2. On the upside, @Hiemfire , I really like the clear layout above. I've had to copy and paste the symbols from cards - where did yours come from?

1. Do you mean the TIE/SF?

As written: Heavy Weapon Turret: You can rotate your indicator only to your or . You must treat the requirement of your equipped upgrades as .

With the pictographs filled in with their key concepts instead: Heavy Weapon Turret : You can rotate your Turret Arc indicator only to your Front Arc or Rear Arc. You must treat the Front Arc requirement of your equipped Missile upgrades as Turret Arc.

The RZ-2?

As written: Refined Gyrostabilizers: You can rotate your indicator only to your or . After you perform an action, you may perform a red or red action.

With the pictographs filled in with their key concepts instead: Refined Gyrostabilizers: You can rotate your Turret Arc indicator only to your Front Arc or Rear Arc. After you perform an action, you may perform a red Boost or red Rotate action.

If not those, then which. I'm more than happy to break the ability down for you (and anyone else reading).

2. Wiki. @Wazat and the others over there have done a real good job with the set up.

Firing arcs: https://xwing-miniatures-second-edition.fandom.com/wiki/Arc

I got the side arcs from here: https://xwing-miniatures-second-edition.fandom.com/wiki/"Sinker"

Maybe Outmaneuver should be reworded then to include firing arcs or be dropped down in price due to its very limited opportunity to use.

1 hour ago, SirToastsalot said:

So I can't find any card that says "front arc". I think every time they refer to an arc at all they use a picture indicating the arc. The only exceptions I can find are when they refer to firing arc. I actually think the technical writing on outmaneuver was intentional, they don't want turret attacks and other types of attack arcs to trigger on outmaneuver.

I'm probably thinking of the firing arc when I think of words written on cards - I had the same issue way back in June when I posted the thread below.

1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

1. Do you mean the TIE/SF?

As written: Heavy Weapon Turret: You can rotate your indicator only to your or . You must treat the requirement of your equipped upgrades as .

With the pictographs filled in with their key concepts instead: Heavy Weapon Turret : You can rotate your Turret Arc indicator only to your Front Arc or Rear Arc. You must treat the Front Arc requirement of your equipped Missile upgrades as Turret Arc.

The RZ-2?

As written: Refined Gyrostabilizers: You can rotate your indicator only to your or . After you perform an action, you may perform a red or red action.

With the pictographs filled in with their key concepts instead: Refined Gyrostabilizers: You can rotate your Turret Arc indicator only to your Front Arc or Rear Arc. After you perform an action, you may perform a red Boost or red Rotate action.

If not those, then which. I'm more than happy to break the ability down for you (and anyone else reading).

2. Wiki. @Wazat and the others over there have done a real good job with the set up.

Firing arcs: https://xwing-miniatures-second-edition.fandom.com/wiki/Arc

I got the side arcs from here: https://xwing-miniatures-second-edition.fandom.com/wiki/"Sinker"

See above. I actually had a thread on this some time ago that expressed some of my issues:

I generally don't have problems understanding the pictographs' use in ship text.

There's validity to the confusion tbh. I wish they had used different iconography for 'positioned in your $wherever' and 'firing a $whatever weapon' (maybe a square symbol versus a round one?) But we are where we are so...

3 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

There's validity to the confusion tbh. I wish they had used different iconography for 'positioned in your $wherever' and 'firing a $whatever weapon' (maybe a square symbol versus a round one?) But we are where we are so...

and then a 3rd symbol for Krassis Trellix for performing an attack from your $whatever.

BTW the difference isn't relevant to the icon, but to the other wording in the card.

"In your ": ship's position

"While you perform a attack": arc used for the attack.

Both of these are referring to your Front Arc, and so unsurprisingly use the icon. However, one of them cares about where the target is, and the other cares about the weapon being fired. "While you perform a [Front Arc] attack" is like another game saying "While you perform a [Shotgun] attack". "In your [Front Arc]" is like a different game saying "In front of you". I've found the wording is unclear to people until they start to see it this way, and then it becomes easy.

In the same line of thinking, I'll Show You The Dark Side cares about you suffering crit damage, while Reinforce cares about uncanceled hit/crit results while you defend. Both effects refer to the icon, but the context is completely different.