Well then, good that it has been resolved. Thanks everyone for the sometimes passionate but mostly civil feedback and discussion.

Yep, it's there in black and white now. Looking forward to sneaking up on YT-1300s and Y-wings.

FAQ is out, Backstabber becomes Sidestabber against the Firespray.

I'll assume a no-stabber against yt-1300, since the printed arc includes the arrow circling itself

The Falcon rulesheet makes it clear that the arrow ring on the Falcon token is a reminder that the ship has a Turret Primary Weapon and that it can fire inside and outside of the Firing Arc. It is quite explicitly NOT a Firing Arc.

Jim

Wow. I did not know that. I thought it was a firing arc. Thanks.

I just assumed it was a firing arc as well. Makes sense that it isn't for Backstabber, otherwise the YT would have nullified his ability completely.

Ah well, i know what happens when you assume...

I don't agree with it, but it is what it is per FFG.

I'm here with chris, cause on every other card you should go with the exact wording. Why not in this case?

This is going with the exact wording. Saying the auxiliary firing arc isn't a firing arc is like saying an X-wing isn't a ship because it's an X-wing. Game elements can be specialized versions of other game elements, and still qualify as those base game elements.

But it's not a ship it's a fighter. Haha, I couldn't resist.

I agree the Buhallin on this.

Firing Arcs seem to include and are indicated as, by the FAQ, both Primary/Standard and Auxiliary inclusive.

But it's not a ship it's a fighter. Haha, I couldn't resist.

"Fighter" is not a game term

picky, picky... You're just sore I'm right,

Now to be even more mature. nana nana boo boo

Letter of the law vs. spirit of the law. My belief (for the very, very little that it matters) is that Backstabber should get his bonus anytime he is outside of his target's front firing arc, YT or 'spray; I think this is the true spirit of his card. Sidestabber (vs Firesparys) or Nostabber (vs YT-1300s) arguments seem to negate the spirit intended. That said, the letter of the law leaves much to be desired, even with the various references - and those are hardly a "yes this works vs everyship as every ship has a forward arc", or even a, "no, some ships have unique arcs that negate his ability" answer has been given to my knowledge from any official source. They answers I read here just lead to futher dissection and dilution of the rules minutia and may lead good intending readers astray in either direction. In the end, I love playing a fun game too much to argue it in a match so, if you're flying him against me, consider his ability rock solid from behind my YT or Firespray - just seems just. If I'm flying him against you and you disagree, I'll gladly just roll my base attack. Game on!

This thread was from July...

That said, the letter of the law leaves much to be desired, even with the various references - and those are hardly a "yes this works vs everyship as every ship has a forward arc", or even a, "no, some ships have unique arcs that negate his ability" answer has been given to my knowledge from any official source.

I'm normally very good about copying sections of the FAQ in, but after reading this I'm not even going to bother.

Just go read the FAQ. Please.

This thread was from July...

..of last year. And the new FAQ directly references this issue with backstabbers ability working against the YT-1300.

Necrothread!

And I just got done grieving for this dearly departed thread and now it's a zombie.

Pass me the shotgun.

Don't forget to double tap.