You have to have a Flagship, this you have to have a Commander, thus you have to have Tarkin/Dondonna.

Page 6 of the RRG under Flagship. "Any ship can be a flagship regardless of the upgrade icons in its upgrade bar." But if a ship is equipped with a Commander the it has to be the Flagship. Page 3.

So you don't Have to have a commander to play, you have an option.

You have to have a commander for a "tournament legal" force.

• A fleet must have one flagship and cannot have more than one.

Hold on, let's be decent here. Where in the rule book does it say a Flagship Must have a commander? Now a ship with a Commander Has to be the Flagship, yes, but I am not finding anywhere where it say a Flagship Must have a Commander.

The wording here is what I am going by and if it does state a Flagship Must have a Commander then I stand corrected. I just don't see it.

A Flagship is a ship equipped with a commander card. You cannot have a flagship without a commander.

I don't have the rules in front of me but it clearly says this under the Flagship section of the Rules Reference book.

I'm looking right at that page.... Ok now I see at the top before it gets into the rule points it does say "A flagship is a ship equipped with a Commander card." So that is right. Horribly worded, it really really should have "A flagship has to have a Commander attached to it" in the bullet points.

FFG please get on that, this Will get eaten up by RAW gamers. RIA does not cut it.

Also Get Out Wave One Soon, we need more than one commander for each side. Seriously!

I think you are reading the rules wrong. The parts before the actual bullet points are the rules. The bullet points are then clarifications and extrapolations on how that rule is applied and can interact with other rules. Of course the document isn't perfect and there will need to be an FAQ, but the information before the bullet points is arguably more important than the bullet points.

It's a grammar and wording thing RAW gamers like to argue over. (I've seen it in other games a lot) but I do agree that this is what FFG intended but this should have a FAQ to remove that Assumption. Just becuase it's better rules writing.

(Heck I read the rules several times and feel pretty good about my understanding And I missed this. It's going to happen a lot more.)

Beatty the RAW on Flagship and Commanders is quite clear you don't have to look at RAI at all.

PG 21 of the L2P. Under Commanders. "Any ship can equip a Commander card regardless of icons on it's upgrade bar". Also, "A ship with a Commander card equipped is a Flagship".

PG 22 Under Fleet-Building Restrictions. "A fleet must have a flagship (a ship with a Commander card). It cannot have more then one Flagship."

Then if you look at the RRG PG 6 the Flagship section again spells that out both specifying what makes a Flagship and that you must have one. Specifically with the first sentence being "A flagship is a ship equipped with a Commander card"

The Fleet Building section on the same page also reiterates that a fleet must have a Flagship.

Commanders on PG 3 reiterates what a Flagship is as well

I am unsure why people are asserting that this is not in the base rulebook and only present in the Tournament rules, as it is present multiple times in multiple sections of both rulebooks.

Simply put. All constructed Fleets must have one Flagship. What makes a ship a Flagship? Having a Commander card. Therefore, as I said initially all constructed Fleets must have a Commander.

Beatty the RAW on Flagship and Commanders is quite clear you don't have to look at RAI at all.

PG 21 of the L2P. Under Commanders. "Any ship can equip a Commander card regardless of icons on it's upgrade bar". Also, "A ship with a Commander card equipped is a Flagship".

PG 22 Under Fleet-Building Restrictions. "A fleet must have a flagship (a ship with a Commander card). It cannot have more then one Flagship."

Then if you look at the RRG PG 6 the Flagship section again spells that out both specifying what makes a Flagship and that you must have one.

The Fleet Building section on the same page also reiterates that a fleet must have a Flagship.

Commanders on PG 3 reiterates what a Flagship is as well

I am unsure why people are asserting that this is not in the base rulebook and only present in the Tournament rules, as it is present multiple times in multiple sections if both rulebooks.

But that is still an asumption none the less even if it looks crystal clear to most. (Trust me, I got my degree in science and I wrote a lot of research papers and there is a difference between a good assumption and a stated fact.)

I am unsure why people are asserting that this is not in the base rulebook and only present in the Tournament rules, as it is present multiple times in multiple sections of both rulebooks.

Agreed. I just went off to check and on re-reading it is blatantly obvious. Dunno how I missed it until I got to the Tournament Rules...

PG 22 of the L2P guide which I qouted above specifically says that all Fleets need a Flagship and that a Flagship is a ship with a Commander. All within the same sentance.

In what way is that unclear?

The problem here is that the learning fleets didn't include a Commander.

For RAW purposes, yes, Commanders are required.

For Learning, I think the game is better served by leaving the Commanders off. And I intend to extend that to my Learning games where we are playing with upgrades. Though I am tempted to give the Imps a couple of objectives -- and make the Rebel pick one.

PG 22 of the L2P guide which I qouted above specifically says that all Fleets need a Flagship and that a Flagship is a ship with a Commander. All within the same sentance.

In what way is that unclear?

What gives guys? I am not arguing the reading at all I am just saying it should be worded better. I am looking at this from a scientific point of view and really want to be friendly here.

The reason I am taking issue with your approach is because it appears to me that rather then accepting that you didn't fully read the applicable rules sections you are instead arguing that the rules are unclearly written. Specifically as I qouted a single sentance that is explicit on the subject, along with many other corroborating instances. Additionally you are making assertions about what the rules do not say, when I went out of the way to quote the text that does say what you are claiming isn't there. Which makes me feel as if you are not reading the posts on the subject before responding.

I find this to be an issue because it is a all to common habit of gamers. To not read the rules fully and then when that leads them to make a faulty conclusion to then assert that the rules were unclear, when they actually were. This leads to those people continuing to make the same errors as they never correct the route cause of the issue, not fully reading the rules in question.

Moreover it leads to bloated FAQs that are just reiterating what the Rulebook already clearly said because a few people didn't accept it.

Everybody misses something sometimes. There is no shame in it unless you continue to do so habitually.

The reason I am taking issue with your approach is because it appears to me that rather then accepting that you didn't fully read the applicable rules sections you are instead arguing that the rules are unclearly written. Specifically as I qouted a single sentance that is explicit on the subject, along with many other corroborating instances. Additionally you are making assertions about what the rules do not say, when I went out of the way to quote the text that does say what you are claiming isn't there. Which makes me feel as if you are not reading the posts on the subject before responding.

I find this to be an issue because it is a all to common habit of gamers. To not read the rules fully and then when that leads them to make a faulty conclusion to then assert that the rules were unclear, when they actually were. This leads to those people continuing to make the same errors as they never correct the route cause of the issue, not fully reading the rules in question.

Moreover it leads to bloated FAQs that are just reiterating what the Rulebook already clearly said because a few people didn't accept it.

Everybody misses something sometimes. There is no shame in it unless you continue to do so habitually.

In other words yes this is a great reading but an assumption and a rule that is easily missed when you read the rule books. It is just not written well and I know it is going to come up again.

Again it is not easy to read and can be missed unless you go out to find the answer. IMO that's not good.

As far as shame... I can handle being wrong and will admit it but here I am not arguing against any ruling just the ambiguous nature of the rule that takes more in depth look to see it. Also I had a habit in college to play the Devil's Advocate and dig for more solid information and it really does work to clarify things. There are such things as a heathy debate.

Rebels are the stronger faction atm because of how good corvettes are. Once wave one hits 5 corvette spam with MoM will be a legit tournament list. In 180 pt games the key to winning as rebs is not trying to be a star destroyer.

@ScottieATF. Just a friendly question, and I am being serious here I want to be friends here. When you first read the fleet building rules did you see this rule stick out or did you, like me, have to go back and reread the three different areas covering Flagships before you went "Ah-Ha!"

That's what I had to do to see this rule stand out and I bet many here had to do this when they read this thread, they went back and reread the rules before connecting the dots.

But after your response, if you want to repond, let's just call it over. No need to get on each other about it.

How do you make a ship a flagship?

It does not say a flagship must have a commander anywhere because it is the actual assigning of a commander that makes it a flagship.

By definition, flagships have a commander.

How do you make a ship a flagship?

It does not say a flagship must have a commander anywhere because it is the actual assigning of a commander that makes it a flagship.

By definition, flagships have a commander.

And you did too, you have to admit that.

Okay leaving that aside now ... what kinda of lists are rebels playing around with I'm not sure I agree that the Rebels are stronger right now ... I'm not saying they are weaker the Corvette is pretty awesome at long range ...

How do you make a ship a flagship?

It does not say a flagship must have a commander anywhere because it is the actual assigning of a commander that makes it a flagship.

By definition, flagships have a commander.

Again, this is a circular argument and my point, how did you come to that conclusion? You got there by rereading the rules a couple times, not in one reading.

And you did too, you have to admit that.

It only took me one reading. 100% honest. But it doesn't matter if it took me 27 million readings. That doesn't make the rules poorly written. Sometimes we just miss things or we misunderstand them. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Wow .. well at least it didn't decend into if we will see SSD.

Okay leaving that aside now ... what kinda of lists are rebels playing around with I'm not sure I agree that the Rebels are stronger right now ... I'm not saying they are weaker the Corvette is pretty awesome at long range ...

Assuming a deathmatch style game, I want to run:

Nebulon-B Escort Frigate 57

CR90 Corvette B 39

-General Dodonna 20

-Donna's Pride 6

-Overload Pulse 8

-Leia Organa 3

Luke Skywalker X-Wing Squadron 20

2 X-Wing Squadron 26 (13 each)

Total: 179

However I haven't actually used anything yet, so I have no idea how effective it would be. The idea is the Nebulon helps the X-Wings neutralize the TIE Fighters while the CR90 races around to the back of the VSD and tries to put the hurt on with its blue dice. Once the X-Wings are free of the TIEs, they start bombing runs.

I really need to read through the objectives though and figure out how to best utilize them.