Jump to content



Photo

Backstabber vs yt and firespray


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#1 Vonpenguin

Vonpenguin

    Member

  • Members
  • 949 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:57 AM

Just wondering if Backstabber has to be outside these ship's primary fireing arc (where they can fire their secondary weapons) or the arc where they can fire their primary weapons? Makes quite a big difference.



#2 Cptnhalfbeard

Cptnhalfbeard

    Member

  • Members
  • 611 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:05 AM

As far as the YT 1300 goes, Backstabber would get his extra die if he is outside of the front arc.  The YT-1300's ability to fire outside of this arc does not affect Backstabber's ability.  I will have to do some research as far as the Firespray's dual arcs goes - but unless you are playing mixed or same factions this wouldn't be an issue :)



#3 Vonpenguin

Vonpenguin

    Member

  • Members
  • 949 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:25 AM

Thank you very much. It most likely won't be an issue for me anytime soon but it may come up in a tornement enviornemnt so it's worth knowing at least. I would assume though it is similar to the yt-1300 situation.



#4 Sergovan

Sergovan

    Fly Casual

  • Members
  • 1,499 posts

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:51 AM

Auxillary Firing Arc from Slave 1 rulesheet:

"When attacking with its primary weapon, a ship with this [special primary weapon] icon may attack an enemy ship that is within range 1-3 and inside its standard or auxillary firing arc."

Backstabber pilot text: 

" When attacking from outside the defenders firing arc, roll 1 additioinal die."

Backstabber only gets his bonus die if he attacks from the flanks of Slave 1. From the front or behind he is still in a firing arc (auxillary or standard doesn't matter).

 


Rebels: 5 X-Wing, 4 Y-Wing, 6 A-Wing, 2 YT-1300, 5 B-wing, 3 HWK-290, 3 Z-95, 1 E-wing, 1 GR 75

Empire: 6 Tie Fighters, 6 Tie Interceptors (1- 181st, 1- RG), 2 Tie Advanced, 2 Firesprays, 4 Tie Bombers,

2 Lambda, 2 Tie Phantom, 2 Defender

Tournament results: (S)11/11; (S)3/11;(AoIA)2/3; [R]12/28; (S) 9/10; (S) 3/6;         


#5 Filthy Pierre

Filthy Pierre

    Member

  • Members
  • 117 posts

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:50 PM

I would use just the front firing arcs for Backstabbers ability regardless of the Falcon and Slave 1s greater fire coverage.

 

" When attacking from outside the defenders firing arc, roll 1 additioinal die."

 

Notice that "firing arc" is singular not plural. I would take it as the front firing which is the primary one.

 

He is a back stabber after all.

 

 

 


If you don't feed trolls they die.

Don't judge on stats alone, play test it for a few games.


#6 ziggy2000

ziggy2000

    Member

  • Members
  • 745 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 05:34 PM

Filthy Pierre said:

I would use just the front firing arcs for Backstabbers ability regardless of the Falcon and Slave 1s greater fire coverage.

 

" When attacking from outside the defenders firing arc, roll 1 additioinal die."

 

Notice that "firing arc" is singular not plural. I would take it as the front firing which is the primary one.

 

He is a back stabber after all.

 

This is not how it is generally played for the Firespray. The Standard and Auxiliary arcs are both considered for Backstabber's ability. So he actually becomes a Sidestabber, in this case. However, you may have a point. Submit a rules question if you want a definitive answer. And then wait.

 



#7 Sergovan

Sergovan

    Fly Casual

  • Members
  • 1,499 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:31 PM

Filthy Pierre said:

I would use just the front firing arcs for Backstabbers ability regardless of the Falcon and Slave 1s greater fire coverage.

 

" When attacking from outside the defenders firing arc, roll 1 additioinal die."

 

Notice that "firing arc" is singular not plural. I would take it as the front firing which is the primary one.

 

He is a back stabber after all.

 

 

 

You're reading the card text a little too literaly. It does say and mean one firing arc. You just can't be in one firing arc to use his ability. Have you considered that when you approach a Firespray that you can only be inside one arc at any given time? The Firespray has two firing arcs, none of which Backstabber can be in for his pilot ability to work.


Rebels: 5 X-Wing, 4 Y-Wing, 6 A-Wing, 2 YT-1300, 5 B-wing, 3 HWK-290, 3 Z-95, 1 E-wing, 1 GR 75

Empire: 6 Tie Fighters, 6 Tie Interceptors (1- 181st, 1- RG), 2 Tie Advanced, 2 Firesprays, 4 Tie Bombers,

2 Lambda, 2 Tie Phantom, 2 Defender

Tournament results: (S)11/11; (S)3/11;(AoIA)2/3; [R]12/28; (S) 9/10; (S) 3/6;         


#8 Vonpenguin

Vonpenguin

    Member

  • Members
  • 949 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 08:27 AM

But is the firespray's auxilary arc a technical arc? It can't fire secondaries useing it after all.



#9 Buhallin

Buhallin

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,224 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 09:54 AM

Here are the full rules (which I'll say again, as I do every time this comes up, that FFG really needs to make these available online):

Each ship in this pack has an auxiliary firing arc identified by dotted lines printed on its ship token.  These ships laso have a unique primary weapon icon printed on their Ship cards.  When attacking with its primary wepaon, a ship with this icon may attack an enemy ship that is within Range 1-3 and inside its standard or auxiliary firing arc.

When attacking with a secondary weapon, the ship must still target an enemy ship inside its standard firing arc (unless otherwise specified on the Upgrade card).

The associated image is titled "Boba Fett's Auxiliary Firing Arc.

I tend to think that's pretty definitive.  In all cases, the auxiliary firing arc is referred to as a firing arc, the primaries are explicitly enabled to fire in that firing arc, and the secondaries are explicitly prohibited from firing in it.  It is, in all ways, a firing arc.


  • magadizer likes this

#10 Ruskal

Ruskal

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 03:14 AM

Hi,

 

I necromance this thread, cause we got the same question in a german board, but with other conclusion.

A user mentioned, that the term "Firing Arc" is defined in the core rulebook, page 10.

Firing Arc
At the front of each ship token is a wedge shape
(green for Imperials, red for Rebels). This area shows
the angle from which the ship’s weapons can fire.

 

Could it be, Backstabbers ability refers to this "Firing Arc" and not to a firing arc?


Edited by Ruskal, 03 July 2013 - 03:19 AM.


#11 chrisdk

chrisdk

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 04:02 AM

I was the user in the german forum.

 

To expand on the point:

 

"Firing Arc" is a bold printed defined term in the rulebook pointing to the front of a ship with specific rules and abilities.

"Auxiliary Firing Arc" is (I assume in the english version identical to the german) a bold printed defined term that is functionaly different from the term "Firing Arc" (only usable by primary weapons that are marked to be able to use it, no using secondary weapons in it)

 

So my assumption is that Backstabber, when refering to the "Firing Arc" means that specific game term rather than the other specific game term "Auxiliary Firing Arc".

 

Independently from that another point that I just remembered.

Since I don't have the Firespray book on hand right now and only have the german one anyway: 

Is there a specific mention in it, that secondary weapons cannot use the "auxiliary firing arc"?

Because otherwise, if backstabber needs to be outside this one as well, I do not see any reason why a secondary weapon should not be allowed to use it, since the core rules also only note that the target needs to be inside the firing arc.



#12 Ruskal

Ruskal

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 04:43 AM


Independently from that another point that I just remembered.

Since I don't have the Firespray book on hand right now and only have the german one anyway: 

Is there a specific mention in it, that secondary weapons cannot use the "auxiliary firing arc"?

Because otherwise, if backstabber needs to be outside this one as well, I do not see any reason why a secondary weapon should not be allowed to use it, since the core rules also only note that the target needs to be inside the firing arc.

 

Sergovan, a few posts ago, posted the part of the Slave-I-Rules to the auxillary firing arc:

"When attacking with its primary weapon, a ship with this [special primary weapon] icon may attack an enemy ship that is within range 1-3 and inside its standard or auxillary firing arc."

Special primary weapon only, no secondary. This is clear.

 

But your first argument is still a good one ;)


Edited by Ruskal, 03 July 2013 - 04:44 AM.


#13 Stormtrooper721

Stormtrooper721

    Member

  • Members
  • 389 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 06:01 AM

I think the next FAQ needs to settle this issue officially. Someone needs to make sure FFG knows that it needs to go in the next FAQ.


The 731st Imperial Flight School - "The Vornskrs" - 2 VT-49 Decimators, 1 TIE Advanced, 3 TIE Interceptors, 10 TIE Fighters, 1 Lambda

26 Victories, 1 Defeat, 0 Draws - 79 kills versus 49 losses


#14 DoubleNot7

DoubleNot7

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,437 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 08:01 AM

I believe the spirit of the rules set forth with the YT-1300 fring arc hold true for all vessels.  i.e. Backstabbers ability is good for any attack outside the frontal 90 degree arc.


Enimo Et Fide


#15 Buhallin

Buhallin

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,224 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 01:31 PM

Even if Backstabber refers to the specific game term "Firing Arc", this argument only holds if the Auxiliary Firing Arc is not also a Firing Arc.  It is - every rule which applies to a Firing Arc, including how you check to see if a ship is in it, how you measure range when using it, etc, is inherited from the fact that it's a Firing Arc.  Essentially, the rules for the Auxiliary Firing Arc are incomplete on their own - they MUST include the standard Firing Arc rules in order to function.

 

The fact that the rules explicitly say Secondary Weapons can't use the Auxiliary points pretty strongly to that Auxiliary being a standard firing arc as well.  If any reference to "Firing Arc" only meant the main arc, then it wouldn't be necessary to exclude the secondaries.

 

So yes, Backstabber does refer to the specific game term "Firing Arc" - but pretty much everything points to "Auxiliary Firing Arc" meeting that requirement as well.



#16 chrisdk

chrisdk

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 03:40 PM

Even if Backstabber refers to the specific game term "Firing Arc", this argument only holds if the Auxiliary Firing Arc is not also a Firing Arc.  It is - every rule which applies to a Firing Arc, including how you check to see if a ship is in it, how you measure range when using it, etc, is inherited from the fact that it's a Firing Arc.  Essentially, the rules for the Auxiliary Firing Arc are incomplete on their own - they MUST include the standard Firing Arc rules in order to function.

 

The fact that the rules explicitly say Secondary Weapons can't use the Auxiliary points pretty strongly to that Auxiliary being a standard firing arc as well.  If any reference to "Firing Arc" only meant the main arc, then it wouldn't be necessary to exclude the secondaries.

 

So yes, Backstabber does refer to the specific game term "Firing Arc" - but pretty much everything points to "Auxiliary Firing Arc" meeting that requirement as well.

 

I still disagree, even though I have to give you that your point is plausible and comes down to a disagreement of how closely to literalness you want to stick for two very, very similarly named game terms. To me the functional difference between "Firing Arc" and "Auxiliary Firing Arc" is big enough that I assume that they are distinct and different labels and barring any explicit wording to the effect that the latter is included only refers to the former.

 

To me the "Auxiliary Fire Arc" wording makes pretty clear that for the purpose of attacking with a primary weapon with that special symbol on it, it can be used like a firing arc.

From this I would also assume that for all other purposes, "Firing Arc" only refers to the regular "Firing Arc".

 

I hope this makes some kind of sense, since it is rather late at night over here ;-)



#17 Ruskal

Ruskal

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 04:34 PM

I'm here with chris, cause on every other card you should go with the exact wording. Why not in this case? Firing Arc and Auxillary Firing Arc are two different things in game terms.

Firing Arc (page 10 core rules) = At the front of each ship token is a wedge shape
(green for Imperials, red for Rebels)

Auxillary Firing Arc (Slave 1 booklet) = Every ship in this expansion has a auxillary firing arc, shown through the dotted lines... (no orignal wording, cause I only have the german Firespray)

 

Firing Arc, at the front of the ship. Slave 1 has a dotted line at the rear, that's no Firing Arc, it's a auxillary firing arc :)



#18 Buhallin

Buhallin

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,224 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 04:34 PM

To me the functional difference between "Firing Arc" and "Auxiliary Firing Arc" is big enough that I assume that they are distinct and different labels and barring any explicit wording to the effect that the latter is included only refers to the former.
 
I understand that you think they're separate, but what is there to support that?  What in the rules that supports the idea that "Firing Arc" refers specifically to the forward arc alone, rather than the general concept of a firing arc?  Because on the other side, the idea that the firing arc is a general term rather than specifically and only the forward arc, IMHO there are several strong points (some of these are repeats from above):
 
1.  The Auxiliary Firing Arc doesn't include all the rules it needs to function as a firing arc.  This only makes sense if it picks up the basic firing arc rules.
2.  Secondary weapons are explicitly prohibited from firing in the rear arc; if the firing arc explicitly refers to the forward, this is an unnecessary restriction.
3.  The Slave I rules I quote above says "...inside its standard or auxiliary firing arc."  The terminology you are suggesting would not use "standard" in this structure, it would be "...inside its firing arc or auxiliary firing arc."
4.  Again, going from the previously quoted bit, the sentence structure there breaks down as "...(standard or auxiliary) firing arc".  That doesn't support the idea of "firing arc" as a concrete rule term which is used only for the forward arc.
 
All of this points to "firing arc" being a class which defines how those arcs work; not something that specifically references only the forward arc.  I may not be looking hard enough, but I can't find any uses of the firing arc term in the rules which doesn't apply to any firing arc the ship may have, standard or auxiliary.


#19 Buhallin

Buhallin

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,224 posts

Posted 03 July 2013 - 04:39 PM

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.



#20 chrisdk

chrisdk

    Member

  • Members
  • 36 posts

Posted 04 July 2013 - 12:38 AM

Hi Buhallin,

 

as I said above, I consider your argument absolutely valid and by now it is really just a matter of opinion since neither of us will find absolute definite proof of our reading in the rules.

 

If I may paraphrase you say that "Firing Arc" and "Auxiliary Firing Arc" are functionally and wording wise so nearly identical that any reference of "Firing Arc" will refer to both of them.

 

I say that they are functionally different enough to assume that a reference of "Firing Arc" only replies to one of them. You say that the explicit mentioning of "no secondary weapons here" supports your view, I believe it supports mine, since I merely consider it a clarification that is redundant considering the first definition of the Arc as something that only specific primary weapons can use.

 

Effectively we both seem to be using the exact same arguments, but for different conclusions and while I don't like that I have to admit that yours does make about as much sense as mine and cannot be resolved without trying to interpret "Rules as Intended" which I generally try to avoid.

 

As far as I am concerned I will still consider my version the stronger reading, but I really don't have anything more to go on for that rather than that it's my reading which is of course always right, mostly because I am german and if there's one thing we do it's literalmindedness in Rules (which is meant as a joke of course).

 

I believe unless either of us can find any new arguments not already mentioned we will not be able to resolve this issue and will only continue to go around in circles now.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS