Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Vonpenguin

Backstabber vs yt and firespray

65 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

...

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.

That's not quite what I'm saying.

 

The Auxiliary Firing Arc is not identical to a Firing Arc - it IS a firing arc.  I believe the term is generic, encompassing the definition of what it is (a wedge), what it means (defines valid targets) and how you apply it (measure edge, range can only be measured within the arc).  In software, we'd call it a subclass or an instance (depending on whether you favored extension or composition).

 

I don't think your argument concerning the secondary clause to be very convincing, I'm afraid.  You say it's redundant, and therefore supports your view - but it's only redundant if your view is correct.  That's pretty much circular reasoning, by its very definition.  Meanwhile, there are multiple other points that indicate that the term isn't used the way you suggest that you don't have any answer for.

 

<shrug>  FFG may surprise us, but until we have a response from them I still have to consider the weight of evidence to support the common interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned, I accept that you do not find my reasoning convincing.

I just don't find yours sufficiently convincing to refute mine either.

 

And since this not a popularity contest where there are votes about what is a "common" interpretation I am looking forward to the FFG reply on it and until then I will put it in my list of rulings to ask the TO about in advance if it is relevant for what I am flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the literal interpretation of Backstabber outside the specific term "firing arc" and that "auxiliary firing arc" doesn't count as you could then argue Backstabber can trigger off the front Firespray arc since its now a "standard firing arc."

We'll see how FFG comes down on this but I read it as Backstabber has to be "Sidestabber" against the Firesprays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, I have read and of course agree with both of your claims on the firing arc. but while I think interpreting the rules is important for game play, sometimes it is best to step away from the rules for a second and actually look at the two ships in question. , if you fly up to someone who is blind behind them (except for radar) and cannot fire on an adversary that is behind them hence their firing arc is in front of them and is " the standard firing arc" then we all know back stabber can get an extra dice. However the Falcon has gunners who can see and  shoot 360 so there really would be no real advantage to backstabber because of the unique firing arc. And slave one's auxillary firing arc is for deploying mines so getting behind slave one with a backstabber would not be the smartest choice one could make. this being said I do believe in my experience that,  the firing arc would mean any firing arc that any given ship has available. and though there is no clearly defined rule on it as you both clearly state, the term "firing arc" means a definite path in which weapons can travel. and since back stabbers ability is intended for being out side of any path of weapons fire. that would mean any and all firing arcs no matter what kind of firing arc any particular ship may have. since back stabbers ability lies in firing upon an opponent when that opponent cannot immediately fire back at the attacker using backstabber. I hope this makes sense as it is late upon my writing this. this is how I would rule if it came up in a game I were playing. thanks for listening to my side. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0