Backstabber vs yt and firespray

[chrisdk 112]

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.

 

By your explanation Backstabber should not get his Bonus ever when attacking the YT.

 

He also should not get it on an Ion-Cannon-Equipped Y-Wing if within Range 1-2.

 

In my opinion this interpretation is pretty much contradicting the rules as written.

 

I also do not know, what you mean by the Firespray's auxiliary Firing Arc being meant for deploying mines. It has nothing to do with mines and if you are referring to Fluffwise then it is based on the fact that it can spin its main armament to the back if required, IIRC.

[wackydave 10]

OK that being said still I maintain that backstabber will only be effective if he is not in any firing arc especially if the pilot using backstabber has to wait to fire. If the yt and fire spray can fire first then it could effectively take that pilot out of the fight before he even bets the chance to use it. Let's face it a "firing arc is a firing arc" weather it is a standard or an auxiliary. And the yt's firing arc is a complete 360 as shown on its base card. So yes backstabber cannot get an extra die for attacking the yt. Or any other ship who equips a turret gun allowing 360 firing. The spirit of the card is meant to give an advantage to the pilots using the backstabber upgrade when he is safe forum retaliation and or any attack from the ship he is attacking. And if the backstabbing pilot bets to shoot first then even better. But if backstabber is on a not so good pilot then he will have to wait to shoot. Using the basic firing rules. Assuming he is not with another pilot allowing him a shot sooner. My whole argument is that. The meaning as I interpret the rules and the spirit of the card along with my own personal use of back stabber would be to stay out of ANY firing arc. But as I said that is my opinion. In my opinion. The use of standard and auxiliary firing arcs is only to designate those ships who can fire either 360 or behind them as a standard primary weapon. And if the fire spray can turn its forward guns backward and fire then for that ship his standard firing arc would be both. And the use of auxiliary is used only to denote the fact that he can in fact fire backwards.

but this is how I would play it. Assuming that I am wrong I would like to make the point of backstabber's extra die

gives a not so good pilot an advantage and that advantage would be lost if he were in ANY FIRING ARC where he could effectively be taken out before resolving his attack. And since we move first then fire in the game even if it were on a hot shot pilot that could shoot first he would be vulnerable to a retaliatory attack. And effectively be taken out making backstabber a one shot deal.

Edited July 7, 2013 by wackydave

[dbmeboy 807]

Sorry wackydave, but you are completely wrong on this one. Both the YT-1300 and a ship with a turret weapon upgrade do have firing arcs. It is incorrect to claim that the YT-1300 has a 360 degree firing arc. What it has (and what turret upgrades can also do) is a primary weapon that ignores the firing arc. Thus, Backstabber can still easily be outside of the firing arc and get its bonus.

The Firespray is a different case as it does indeed have 2 different firing arcs (primary and auxiliary). I agree with the interpretation that Backstabber only gets its bonus when not in either firing arc.

[StevenO 2,996]

I would actually agree with wackydave on when Backstabber's bonus should apply.  If the target's primary weapon could be used against him then Backstabber doesn't get the extra die.  This would mean a YT-1300 is immune to that bonus die.  A Y-Wing and the HWK would still be vulnerable as their turrents are secondary weapons.

[dbmeboy 807]

I would actually agree with wackydave on when Backstabber's bonus should apply.  If the target's primary weapon could be used against him then Backstabber doesn't get the extra die.  This would mean a YT-1300 is immune to that bonus die.  A Y-Wing and the HWK would still be vulnerable as their turrents are secondary weapons.

Unfortunately, as much sense as that might make flavor-wise, that's not what the rules say.  Backstabber cares about firing arc, not whether or not the primary weapon can target him.

[wackydave 10]

this is a very interesting topic for me because I can actually see both sides of the argument. and I see very plausible points on both sides. I am glad that someone submitted the question to FFG. And am very much looking forward to hearing their ruling. Giving you the point on secondary weapons on other ships with one firing arc. however I still maintain in the spirit of the game, the arrow on the yt-1300 encircles the whole card and thus makes a firing arc of 360, and that the turret weapon on the yt-1300 is a primary weapon. I also understand that the argument for backstabber getting the bonus, since he is not in the original standard firing arc. however as someone in this post has stated that the auxilary firing arc must use the rules for the standard arc to be a complete rule which to me just makes it a legitimate firing arc and thus the auxilary is used only to delineate which firing arc one would or could use. although I do understand in a way about the difference in being able to target with a primary weapon and being in a firing arc or not. it is just to me you have to have to be in a firing arc to be targeted by a primary weapon. if you are not in the firing arc then you cannot be targeted. and I agree with you the card does say "not in the firing arc" and this leads us back to the argument of the firing arc. It is my belief that as the game evolves so do the rules and I hope the rules clarification on this evolves but either way, I will play as ffg dictates whether I agree with it or not. but until then as I stated in an earlier post I will play it as with the yt-1300 that it is immune to the backstabber but only ig upgraded with a gunner. and that on the firespray that the auxiliary firing arc be treated as a standard firing arc. and if I play with some one who has a difference of opinion then we can flip a coin as to whose rule we will use. I am glad I was able to have my say in this discussion and I really enjoy these debates as it really brings insight to me, and I am so glad we can agree and disagree, yet still maintain a quorum of dignity and class.

[dbmeboy 807]

 it is just to me you have to have to be in a firing arc to be targeted by a primary weapon. if you are not in the firing arc then you cannot be targeted.

 This is the statement that's messing you up.  If you read the rules supplement that comes with the YT-1300 it specifies that the turrent symbol on the YT-1300's primary weapon means that it can target enemy ships in range both inside and outside of the firing arc.  Not that the firing arc is considered to be 360°, but that you are allowed to use that primary weapon to target outside of the arc.  It's pretty much the same wording as on the Ion Cannon Turret card.  So:

 

1) General rule - the primary weapon (and secondary weapons) only target within firing arc

2) Specific exception - some secondary weapons specify that they can fire outside of the firing arc

3) Specific exception - the YT-1300 can use its primary weapon outside of its firing arc

 

Note that this does not keep the Falcon from having a firing arc.

[RookiePilot 636]

Great discussion.  After reading through the entire thing, I think I fall on the side of the Firing Arc is forward facing only on all ships.  The YT-1300 can fire it's primary outside the Firing Arc but that doesn't affect Backstabber's ability. The Firespray-31 has a more restricted area outside of its Firing Arc that it can shoot it's primary weapon, specifically named the Auxiliary Firing Arc.  If Backstabber's ability was phrased outside of the Firing Arc, this would be simple to rule on.  But it doesn't.  It says outside the firing arc.  I would interpret this to be either the Firing Arc or Auxiliary Firing Arc, because the lower case firing arc would be satisfied by either.  The only doubt left is the "the" in front of the term "firing arc", which could be interpreted to mean the one and only as opposed to if it said "a firing arc".  But I'm inclined to say that could also encompass both, making Backstabber into Sidestabber for the Firespray-31.  Feel free to differ here, as my decision to ignore the "the" is still open for debate.  However, this is really moot, since Backstabber and any variation of the Firespray-31 are Imperial in nature, they can't even target each other.  We can pick this up whenever the Rebels get a ship with an Auxiliary Firing Arc.

[magadizer 617]

However, this is really moot, since Backstabber and any variation of the Firespray-31 are Imperial in nature, they can't even target each other.  We can pick this up whenever the Rebels get a ship with an Auxiliary Firing Arc.

No, it's still relevant in tournament play, where mirror matches are common. Even in a small tournament I played in I encountered this very issue with Backstabber vs. my Bounty Hunters in I believe the very first match. I made sure to address this with the TO before play began so we were clear on the rules interpretation. He agreed with me, that a firing arc is a firing arc. So the Firespray has 2, while the Falcon (as the included rulesheet indicates) has one, and an ability to fire outside its arc.

[Buhallin 4,563]

This discussion has officially crossed the line into "surreal".

Edited July 16, 2013 by Buhallin

[Grimwalker 647]

I don't think we are well-served by splitting hairs over whether "firing arc" on Backstabber's card text is singular or plural, or whether they used the "definite article." After all, it was printed when things were not ambiguous, so we have to look to what has been published alongside ships with more complex firing abilities.

 

Whether Firing Arc is capitalized is of no importance whatsoever.

 

"Its" is a possessive. "It's" is a contraction of "it is."  "The Firespray-31 has a more restricted area outside of its Firing Arc that it can shoot it is primary weapon, specifically named the Auxiliary Firing Arc."

Count me on the side of counting the Auxiliary Firing Arc as a firing arc which satisfies the criteria of Backstabbers text.

[wackydave 10]

ok I will stand corrected on the rules for the yt-1300 I didn't have the cards in my truck. thanks for pointing that out to me.   still a very interesting topic.

[magadizer 617]

This discussion has officially crossed the line into "surreal".

Ceci n'est pas un arc de tir.

[wackydave 10]

 

This discussion has officially crossed the line into "surreal".

Ceci n'est pas un arc de tir.

 

not sure of the meaning here. I am not multilingual sorry.

[wackydave 10]

ok finally looked it up laughing out loud... "this is not an arc of fire"

[magadizer 617]

ok finally looked it up laughing out loud... "this is not an arc of fire"

buhallin said the discussion was surreal. I was making reference to a famous painting by Magritte. It is a picture of a pipe with the words "ceci n'est pas une pipe" underneath.

[zymurgy65 3]

^{A few people seem to be missing the point on this one. Backstabber's ability is based not on attacking from a position where the enemy can't shoot back, but from where it's harder for the pilot to see (and thus evade) his attack. This is the reason that WW2 fighter pilots usually attacked bombers from the sides or rear, even when those aircraft had gunners who could engage them.}

 

^{In short, Backstabber should get the attack bonus against any ship, regardless of its ability to return fire. It might have made more sense if FFG had said his attack reduced the enemy ship's defence dice by one, but that would have negated his advantage against a Y-wing or YT-1300 with damaged thrusters.}

[RookiePilot 636]

 

However, this is really moot, since Backstabber and any variation of the Firespray-31 are Imperial in nature, they can't even target each other.  We can pick this up whenever the Rebels get a ship with an Auxiliary Firing Arc.

No, it's still relevant in tournament play, where mirror matches are common. Even in a small tournament I played in I encountered this very issue with Backstabber vs. my Bounty Hunters in I believe the very first match. I made sure to address this with the TO before play began so we were clear on the rules interpretation. He agreed with me, that a firing arc is a firing arc. So the Firespray has 2, while the Falcon (as the included rulesheet indicates) has one, and an ability to fire outside its arc.

 

Heh.  Rookie mistake!  No tournaments for me yet.

 

BTW, clarifying ambiguous rules with your opponent before the game starts is always a good idea.

Edited July 22, 2013 by RookiePilot

[RealGenius 45]

^{Backstabber's ability is based not on attacking from a position where the enemy can't shoot back, but from where it's harder for the pilot to see (and thus evade) his attack.} 

 

How do you know that?  I didn't see that mentioned on his card.

[DoubleNot7 768]

IMHO, only the primary fire arc is counted, just as it is for the M-Falcon.  Nothing else would be logical.

[Patriarch 108]

^{A few people seem to be missing the point on this one. Backstabber's ability is based not on attacking from a position where the enemy can't shoot back, but from where it's harder for the pilot to see (and thus evade) his attack. This is the reason that WW2 fighter pilots usually attacked bombers from the sides or rear, even when those aircraft had gunners who could engage them.}

 

^{In short, Backstabber should get the attack bonus against any ship, regardless of its ability to return fire. It might have made more sense if FFG had said his attack reduced the enemy ship's defence dice by one, but that would have negated his advantage against a Y-wing or YT-1300 with damaged thrusters.}

A reasonable fluff assumption, however it might equally be argued that Firesprays are flown by crafty pilots particularly sensistive to being attacked in the rear, which is why their ship is designed to shoot the main weapon backwards and release bombs to destroy such attackers.  You can't outsneak a sneak...so fluffwise it could be justifiable to exclude Backstabber's ability for the Firesprays' rear arc.

[RealGenius 45]

FAQ is out, Backstabber becomes Sidestabber against the Firespray.

[Johdo 343]

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

[Darkheart 58]

You're missing the point Johdo.

YT-1300s still have a firing arc.Their turret just lets them shoot outside of this arc. The arrow cirle is NOT a fireing are, just a reminder that the primary weapon usses the turret rules.

Therefore backstabber still works against a YT-1300

 

Turret Primary Weapon: Each ship in this pack uses a turret as its primary weapon. Thus, each Ship card shows the TURRET PRIMARY WEAPON icon, and each ship token shows a circular red arrow as a reminder. (new symbol)

When attacking with the turret primary weapon, a ship may target an enemy ship inside or outside its firing arc. When attacking with a secondary weapon, the ship must still target a ship inside its firing arc, unless specified otherwise on the Upgrade card.

Backstabber triggers his ability only if no portion of his base is inside any of the printed firing arcs on the defender’s ship token.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Darkheart

[Emrico 410]

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