Probably could pay you in coffee.

If I know Dras--and I don't--he would say he'd prefer to be paid in booze.

someone has found a gap in the rules and are exploiting something that where the rules have a clear implication, but don't explicitly say for definate what the rule is. It's rare for how an effect behaves to be truly counter-intuitive. (It has happened)

On the contrary, it happens with some regularity around these parts.

Without looking up FAQs or the resolution on these forums, can you answer, citing just from the rules and card text:

Can G8 prevent Engine Techs?

If a squadron with Grit is engaged by two squadrons, one with heavy and one without, can it move?

Can a bomber within range of two BCCs reroll the die twice?

If a ship with XI7 attacks a ship with Advanced Projectors, can the AP ship redirect one damage to each shield, or one damage to one shield?

If a squadron is engaged by one squadron with heavy at distance 1 of Instigator, can it shoot at Instigator? What about at another ship? What if the engaging squadron has heavy and escort?

If you're using Rieekan and playing Fire Lanes and lose a ship with dice on the objective tokens, are dice totaled for the objective before or after the ship is destroyed?

If so, I would love for you to hang around here more, because you can answer questions that none of the rest of us can.

Not all, but many of these questions could have been prevented by the implementation of a clear "stack" or "ladder" timing structure. I think OP is right on the money that this game could use such a mechanic for clarity.

Ok, Challenge accepted! DISCLAIMER: I AM POSSIBLY WRONG ON SOME OF THESE. THIS POST IS NOT DEFINITIVE. I am also amending your rules to allow me use of any ERRATA that have been published, since these are direct corrections to the rules, but I will refrain from using FAQ answers.

1) G8 work on Egine techs? Engine techs directs you to execute an additional manuever of distance 1. Rule book Page 11 heading Ship movement prescribes a 2 step process for all manuevers, step 1 being determine course. G8 is allowed to activate during this step as indicated by it's card text. Conclusion: YES. G8 May effect an in range ship during the additional manuever granted by Engine techs.

2.) Grit engaged by heavy and not heavy? Case study. If a ship with grit were engaged by 10 squadrons with heavy, would it be able to move? Clearly yes. The Heavy keyword indicates that the squadron should be ignored when determining engagement for movement or attacking ships. Grit Allows you ignore exactly one squadron that would prevent you from moving. Therefore, if you are engaged by 1 heavy and 1 non-heavy the heavy disqualifies itself, allowing you to use grit to ignore the other. CONCLUSION: Yes. Heavy Ships do not interfere with ships that have grit any more than they would affect ships without it.

3.) Stacking Bomber Command centers? This i will grant is a tough one. The card grants an ability to Bombers that feels very similar to the way Swarm works. If you fullfill [condition] you get to re-roll 1 attack die. Fulfilling [condition] more than once does grants not an additional reroll. CONCLUSION: No, but I see reasonable cases for yes and am eager for a clarification on this one.

4.) X17 interaction with Advanced projectors? walkthrough time: A ship with AP suffers 6 Damage. During spend defense tokens step, it chooses to use a redirect token, and by doing so they turn on AP and are now allwed to assign any damage that they redirect to more one hullzone. Now, because the defender has chosen to use this token, the trigger condition for X17 turbolasers is fulfilled, and enforces that the number of damage that may be redirected by that token is only '1'. AP still allows you to assign that 1 damage to any hull zone (including a non-adjacent hull zone)

5.) The Instigator title creates a mess. It was poorly written and has had not 1, but 2 modifications in the FAQ. I completely conceed this one as unresolvable without help. The rest of the answers I will answer having this one resolved by FAQ

:

If a ship was engaged by a Heavy squadron and in range of both Instigator and another ship, that squadron could not shoot the other ship, as it is engaged.

Heavy + Escort: Heavy modifies your rules to allow engaged sqaudrons to shoot ships. Escort provide protection to other SQUADRONS, but says nothing about ships. So, a squadron the is engaged by a Heavy Escort could shoot a ship but not any non escort squadrons that might be in the area (such as Y-Wings)

6.)Reiken with Fire lanes: I would say AFTER. Reiken keeps ships in play till the end of the Status Phase. Fire Lanes occurs at the end of the game Round which has to be after all phases of the turn are complete. So the status phase starts, does all of it's stuff, and then End, triggering the ships removal. Now all effects that occur "at the end of the round" would occur.

There! I've done my best. It would have been easier with a flowchart. I agree a flowchart like the one they did A Game of Thrones LCG would have been highly beneficial, particularly for the Reikan quastion.

And the Rules Rebut... Because you've done some mental and logical gymnastics here, and not all in the right direction... The devil is in the details after all, and its those details (in one rules case, a single letter.... an 's') that causes the issue...

But as a response, because its 8:30 in the morning and I don't have my coffee:

1) - But will it DO anything? If the Ships Speed is 4, doing an Engine Techs Maneuver and G8 reduces ship speed by 1 (it just says speed, it does not clarify 'ship speed' or 'speed of maneuver', which is the problem), then the Ships Speed would be 3, the Engine Techs Maneuver would still be 1, and the Maneuver goes off without a Hitch...

2) - Grit does not allow you to "ignore one squadron" - that is a misrepresentation of the rule... Grit allows you to move while engaged with only one squadron ... There may be other rules in play that allow you to move if engaged by such squadrons, but it is not the Grit rule that allows you to move... ALL factors IN TOTAL must be considered... If a Grit ship is engaged by a Heavy Squadron, and Engaged by a Non-Heavy Squadron, then it cannot move because: 1) it is engaged by a Non-Heavy Squadron, and 2) It cannot use Grit, as it is engaged by more than one squadron .... Grit does not work.

3) Bomber Command Center and Targeting Scrambler are one and the same here. The only distinction is wether "While Defending" or "While Attacking", which says you can use a Card effect once for the trigger, and not again, would work for 2 Cards being the Trigger... Making a decision is impossible as there is no precedent , and as it is, we are going off a developer interview for intent.

4) The Trick here is in the card, and on the pluralization of said card... It says "Hull Zones"... Advice Given - is it an absolute of 1 damage to 1 hull zone, or is it a limit of 1 damage to each hull zone as chosen... This one, again, making an actual determination on the rules is impossible , as we have been Told, Officially, Two Different times, that BOTH WAYS ARE CORRECT ... The games Designer is just doing it this way for "Future Games Balance"... Note: Intent was for it to be the other way (AP can let you ignore a total of 3 damage by taking 1 damage on 3 hull zones), but it was changed for future balance .

5) You can always shoot an enemy Squadron at Range 1. Even if you are not engaged with it. You can choose to shoot. If you choose to shoot a Squadron, then you must prioritise Escort Squadrons you are Engaged with... Heavy lets you shoot at Ships. This is an exception, and re-gifts you choice between Ship or Squadron... Note as well, that Instigator is not an Escort. it is not a priority target that you must prioritise... If you choose Ship, you can shoot at any ship at range, because there is no rule defining a ship as a priority target at this stage...

6) I don't necessarily disagree with you. But We're Wrong after all...

And the Rules Rebut... Because you've done some mental and logical gymnastics here, and not all in the right direction... The devil is in the details after all, and its those details (in one rules case, a single letter.... an 's') that causes the issue...

But as a response, because its 8:30 in the morning and I don't have my coffee:

1) - But will it DO anything? If the Ships Speed is 4, doing an Engine Techs Maneuver and G8 reduces ship speed by 1 (it just says speed, it does not clarify 'ship speed' or 'speed of maneuver', which is the problem), then the Ships Speed would be 3, the Engine Techs Maneuver would still be 1, and the Maneuver goes off without a Hitch...

2) - Grit does not allow you to "ignore one squadron" - that is a misrepresentation of the rule... Grit allows you to move while engaged with only one squadron ... There may be other rules in play that allow you to move if engaged by such squadrons, but it is not the Grit rule that allows you to move... ALL factors IN TOTAL must be considered... If a Grit ship is engaged by a Heavy Squadron, and Engaged by a Non-Heavy Squadron, then it cannot move because: 1) it is engaged by a Non-Heavy Squadron, and 2) It cannot use Grit, as it is engaged by more than one squadron .... Grit does not work.

3) Bomber Command Center and Targeting Scrambler are one and the same here. The only distinction is wether "While Defending" or "While Attacking", which says you can use a Card effect once for the trigger, and not again, would work for 2 Cards being the Trigger... Making a decision is impossible as there is no precedent , and as it is, we are going off a developer interview for intent.

4) The Trick here is in the card, and on the pluralization of said card... It says "Hull Zones"... Advice Given - is it an absolute of 1 damage to 1 hull zone, or is it a limit of 1 damage to each hull zone as chosen... This one, again, making an actual determination on the rules is impossible , as we have been Told, Officially, Two Different times, that BOTH WAYS ARE CORRECT ... The games Designer is just doing it this way for "Future Games Balance"... Note: Intent was for it to be the other way (AP can let you ignore a total of 3 damage by taking 1 damage on 3 hull zones), but it was changed for future balance .

5) You can always shoot an enemy Squadron at Range 1. Even if you are not engaged with it. You can choose to shoot. If you choose to shoot a Squadron, then you must prioritise Escort Squadrons you are Engaged with... Heavy lets you shoot at Ships. This is an exception, and re-gifts you choice between Ship or Squadron... Note as well, that Instigator is not an Escort. it is not a priority target that you must prioritise... If you choose Ship, you can shoot at any ship at range, because there is no rule defining a ship as a priority target at this stage...

6) I don't necessarily disagree with you. But We're Wrong after all...

i really appreciate all of this effort we went to answer all of this. I have some thoughts to finish out with. I am basicly going to take your word here as law.

1) well...it'll change the speed of the ship. Granted that does nothing to the manuever itself, but I can think a few longer term plays that it could matter. It's more than NOTHING.

2 and 3 I can accept as wrong. That's fine. 5 I think we agree but are talking a little bit past each other.

But on 4 and 6.....PARTICULARLY on 6......Help me understand why we are wrong on 6. The timing of both things is clear. Reikan heppens at the end of Status, scoring happens at the end of round, and the end of round is DEFINITIONALLY after the end of all the phases. nothing in the Erratas OR FAQs for either of these cards changes the timing.......why are we wrong?

And then for 4....That's bad decision making of thier part. for something that big to work both ways?

So I am starting think that's not that we need to have clarifications on these cards as they come out, but that they need to go back and polish of the rule set IN GENERAL. Particularly if things like 6 are 'Just because'.

And the Rules Rebut... Because you've done some mental and logical gymnastics here, and not all in the right direction... The devil is in the details after all, and its those details (in one rules case, a single letter.... an 's') that causes the issue...

But as a response, because its 8:30 in the morning and I don't have my coffee:

1) - But will it DO anything? If the Ships Speed is 4, doing an Engine Techs Maneuver and G8 reduces ship speed by 1 (it just says speed, it does not clarify 'ship speed' or 'speed of maneuver', which is the problem), then the Ships Speed would be 3, the Engine Techs Maneuver would still be 1, and the Maneuver goes off without a Hitch...

2) - Grit does not allow you to "ignore one squadron" - that is a misrepresentation of the rule... Grit allows you to move while engaged with only one squadron ... There may be other rules in play that allow you to move if engaged by such squadrons, but it is not the Grit rule that allows you to move... ALL factors IN TOTAL must be considered... If a Grit ship is engaged by a Heavy Squadron, and Engaged by a Non-Heavy Squadron, then it cannot move because: 1) it is engaged by a Non-Heavy Squadron, and 2) It cannot use Grit, as it is engaged by more than one squadron .... Grit does not work.

3) Bomber Command Center and Targeting Scrambler are one and the same here. The only distinction is wether "While Defending" or "While Attacking", which says you can use a Card effect once for the trigger, and not again, would work for 2 Cards being the Trigger... Making a decision is impossible as there is no precedent , and as it is, we are going off a developer interview for intent.

4) The Trick here is in the card, and on the pluralization of said card... It says "Hull Zones"... Advice Given - is it an absolute of 1 damage to 1 hull zone, or is it a limit of 1 damage to each hull zone as chosen... This one, again, making an actual determination on the rules is impossible , as we have been Told, Officially, Two Different times, that BOTH WAYS ARE CORRECT ... The games Designer is just doing it this way for "Future Games Balance"... Note: Intent was for it to be the other way (AP can let you ignore a total of 3 damage by taking 1 damage on 3 hull zones), but it was changed for future balance .

5) You can always shoot an enemy Squadron at Range 1. Even if you are not engaged with it. You can choose to shoot. If you choose to shoot a Squadron, then you must prioritise Escort Squadrons you are Engaged with... Heavy lets you shoot at Ships. This is an exception, and re-gifts you choice between Ship or Squadron... Note as well, that Instigator is not an Escort. it is not a priority target that you must prioritise... If you choose Ship, you can shoot at any ship at range, because there is no rule defining a ship as a priority target at this stage...

6) I don't necessarily disagree with you. But We're Wrong after all...

i really appreciate all of this effort we went to answer all of this. I have some thoughts to finish out with. I am basicly going to take your word here as law.

1) well...it'll change the speed of the ship. Granted that does nothing to the manuever itself, but I can think a few longer term plays that it could matter. It's more than NOTHING.

2 and 3 I can accept as wrong. That's fine. 5 I think we agree but are talking a little bit past each other.

But on 4 and 6.....PARTICULARLY on 6......Help me understand why we are wrong on 6. The timing of both things is clear. Reikan heppens at the end of Status, scoring happens at the end of round, and the end of round is DEFINITIONALLY after the end of all the phases. nothing in the Erratas OR FAQs for either of these cards changes the timing.......why are we wrong?

And then for 4....That's bad decision making of thier part. for something that big to work both ways?

So I am starting think that's not that we need to have clarifications on these cards as they come out, but that they need to go back and polish of the rule set IN GENERAL. Particularly if things like 6 are 'Just because'.

1) It will chagne teh speed of the ship until the end of the maneuver... At which point it goes back to nothing... Which is the very epitome of doing nothing, as at the end, nothing has changed....

Guys, I offered an example of how rules could be interpreted in multiple ways due to ambiguous wording. Please do not start am argument about individual rules in this thread.

Probably could pay you in coffee.

If I know Dras--and I don't--he would say he'd prefer to be paid in booze.

Victoria Cascade I would say. . .

Guys, I offered an example of how rules could be interpreted in multiple ways due to ambiguous wording. Please do not start am argument about individual rules in this thread.

Whats the point of the thread then? If you want a consistent timing chart, that is a general discussion not just a rules discussion.

It's a general discussion that specifically pertains to rules disputes, and should be in the rules dispute forum. If the discussion was about how the usage of certain words can be used to define multiple timing instances for a card, that would be on topic. In my example, I showed that the wording of a specific card justified two possible interpretations of when it should be used.

Instead, the argument is quickly devolving into "here's how you should use (this card) because I believe it's accurate" and that is not on-topic. These sorts of arguments are, in fact, the exact reason this thread exists.

It's a general discussion that specifically pertains to rules disputes, and should be in the rules dispute forum. If the discussion was about how the usage of certain words can be used to define multiple timing instances for a card, that would be on topic. In my example, I showed that the wording of a specific card justified two possible interpretations of when it should be used.

Instead, the argument is quickly devolving into "here's how you should use (this card) because I believe it's accurate" and that is not on-topic. These sorts of arguments are, in fact, the exact reason this thread exists.

It's a general discussion that specifically pertains to rules disputes, and should be in the rules dispute forum. If the discussion was about how the usage of certain words can be used to define multiple timing instances for a card, that would be on topic. In my example, I showed that the wording of a specific card justified two possible interpretations of when it should be used.

Instead, the argument is quickly devolving into "here's how you should use (this card) because I believe it's accurate" and that is not on-topic. These sorts of arguments are, in fact, the exact reason this thread exists.

Could be because this is the rules forums where we discuss the rules and as you said, this is a general discussion as you stated and should be there.

It's a generalized discussion specifically about timing issues and words about timing on multiple cards. It is also a specific request that these issues be addressed, by people who pay attention to the rules subforum to determine which rules need to be addressed in future FAQs.

Not every rules discussion needs to be an accusatory he said/she said argument about what specific cards do. This thread is about discussing a situation that is defining rules for all cards with certain wordings ambiguously. If you want to contribute, offer a specific keyword or question where a timing issue is coming up based on language. That's what this should be about.

Heck, I'm wondering if there are players using non-English upgrades where there is ambiguity? It would be useful to know if this is a consistent issue across all regions. Or does FFG only print their cards and rules in English?

Several FFG games exist in multiple languages. X-wing is a good example.

Guys, I offered an example of how rules could be interpreted in multiple ways due to ambiguous wording. Please do not start am argument about individual rules in this thread.

They are not arguing individual rules, they are arguing the need for rule clarifications, which is the essence of your post.

And seriously, this is the rules forum, they argue some very pedantic points here.

I think that when you're having to jump through multiple different sections of the rule book before FAQs to get to understanding how a single card works like G-8, there's a problem.

Apart from horrendously simple games, this always seems to be the case.

The word "resolve" and its variations shows up in the Star Wars Armada Rules Reference Guide and FAQ a combined 75 times and yet what it means in game terms is never explained. The word "During" occurs 66 times in the RRG and FAQ, yet it too is left up to the player to define. Both words are even used in the Effect Use and Timing section of the FAQ, but are used to define other timing issues.

We have two words repeated 141 times that are directly used to define timing for other cards in the RRG and FAQ without a definition themselves.

This is the sort of issue I'm talking about. It's more than any one card, though some cards demonstrate the issue more than others.

Wouldn't that imply you use a "most common" dictionary definition?

The rule that you cannot play card effects during Setup would be read as starting from Step 1 Define Play Area and Setup Area and finish when step 8 Clean Up has been concluded. Does this need a definition for during?

While I agree with the premise that FFG could do better I disagree that a laborious set of definitions be made that really aren't the cause of the problem.

The problem with G-8 isn't that it has to resolve during the Determine Course Step, but that the resolution of the Determine Course Step has several steps. As such we end up with a rules situation that can become a bit of a "Mexican Standoff". Here it isn't so much that the words need a definition but rather the timing of the decisions is too broad. Ideally we are looking for something more concrete "G-8: Before your opponent starts the Determin Course step of a ships movement...." or "After the determine course step and before the Move Ship step...."

Sato is pretty clear, as a card effect he will be played during the attack at the point all of the attackers card effects get to be played. As such you get to play him after seeing the results on the dice, giving him a re-roll effect as well as you are not going to replace a double hit red dice when you have a blank faced red dice. Now, here the call for an FAQ entry is either because the player needs the rules part clarified because they haven't understood them or they do not believe that the timing of the card is applied at the correct point. Did the card really intend to have that re-roll effect in addition?

The card text for Sato is "Replace two dice." "Replace" has no prior definition. A card that does indeed accomplish your exact definition exists, and it uses entirely different language to achieve the effect. That card is Dual Turbolaser Turrets, spoiled in the Arquitens preview image in the same article. Commander Sato has easily enough space to squeeze identical wording onto his card. So why create a new keyword?

Standardize! If they want to create a "Replace" keyword, just do it and be consistent about the effect. There's no good reason to have two different ways of accomplising the same goal.

Similarly to your point, and to mine, you have correctly noted that the phrase " resolves" and "during" are too broad as multiple substeps occur during some of these steps. Standardize! It's clear the effect is supposed to happen at a particular moment, make that moment clear so both players know what to expect!

Another term I hate is "Recover" in regards to defense tokens because the game is unclear what happens to tokens that are discarded. We know they go into a discard pile and can no longer be used, but are they still attached to the individual ship? Nearly every other FFG miniatures game makes it explicitly clear what happens to discarded items that are still attached to their models, why not Armada?

So you want them to create a rule terms dictionary and stay in that. . . Anyone else see the problem with that idea?

The card text for Sato is "Replace two dice." "Replace" has no prior definition. A card that does indeed accomplish your exact definition exists, and it uses entirely different language to achieve the effect. That card is Dual Turbolaser Turrets, spoiled in the Arquitens preview image in the same article. Commander Sato has easily enough space to squeeze identical wording onto his card. So why create a new keyword?

Standardize! If they want to create a "Replace" keyword, just do it and be consistent about the effect. There's no good reason to have two different ways of accomplising the same goal.

Add: (p7) "When a die is added, roll an unused die of the appropriate color into the attack pool."

Attack: (Page 2)

2 . Roll Attack Dice: Gather attack dice to form the attack pool and roll those dice. Gather only the dice that are appropriate for the range of the attack as indicated by the icons on the range ruler.

3 . Resolve Attack Effects: The attacker can resolve attack effects as described below:

◊ Modify Dice: The attacker can resolve any of its effects that modify its dice.....

◊ Spend Accuracy Icons: The attacker can spend one or more of its accuracy icons to choose the same.....

(I haven't copied the whole rules section as it gets a bit wonky so please look up the pages).

Now I am sure a brighter rules person will correct me if I am in error.

Adding a red dice to a ship would mean you roll the red dice into the pool at step 2, thus an attack would be able to be made at long range when it otherwise wouldn't if all you had were black dice.

Replacing a dice then I am using an effect that modifies the dice, happening at step 3, if all I had were black dice then my attack wouldn't be possible as I have no dice in the pool that would allow a long range attack.

The outcome is different, interesting too, that as it stands right now, you could replace two black dice with two black dice using Sato. Which also has quite a different effect to Adding a dice.

Adding a red dice to a ship would mean you roll the red dice into the pool at step 2, thus an attack would be able to be made at long range when it otherwise wouldn't if all you had were black dice.

"ADD" is an effect that is defined in the rules, and its timing is Step 3: Modify Dice.

Because if "ADD" was an effect at Step 2, then you could Ackbar to long range with only a Torpedo Frigate, or an Obstructed Single Die shot...

Because, RRG, Page 5:

• An effect that modifies attack dice can only be resolved during the “Resolve Attacks Effects” step of an attack unless another timing is specified.

"While a friendly ship is attacking" helps us not, because it only specifies that it can happen sometime during the Attack Step.

But then the trick up is, how do you define ":modifies" a dice? if you consider just the list as total, then you have the following effects as Mandatory in the Resolve Attacks Effects" step:

Modifying Dice Dice can be modified in the following ways by game effects:

• Reroll: When a die is rerolled, the attacker picks it up and rolls it again. A die can be rerolled multiple times.

• Add: When a die is added, roll an unused die of the appropriate color into the attack pool.

• Change: When a die is changed, rotate it to display the indicated face.

• Spend: When a die or die icon is spent, remove that die from the attack pool.

• Cancel: When a die or die icon is canceled, remove it from the attack pool.

Add is there, but Replace is not.

In fact, the word "Replace" simply does not appear - at all - in the Rules Reference Guide.

Ever.

So you want them to create a rule terms dictionary and stay in that. . . Anyone else see the problem with that idea?

I want them to be consistent on wording for identical effects. If they introduce a new effect, explicitly define it on the card. If they intend to reuse it later, turn it into a keyword and update it in an FAQ.

They do this all the time in both X-Wing and Imperial Assault. This should not be an issue, and maintains consistent clarification for new and old cards.

So you want them to create a rule terms dictionary and stay in that. . . Anyone else see the problem with that idea?

I want them to be consistent on wording for identical effects. If they introduce a new effect, explicitly define it on the card. If they intend to reuse it later, turn it into a keyword and update it in an FAQ.

They do this all the time in both X-Wing and Imperial Assault. This should not be an issue, and maintains consistent clarification for new and old cards.

For the most part they do that. They update FAQs and such about 30 days after release of the wave/expansion

Could be they toss in a reference card or two with a wave if there are new terms that need explaining?

Could be they toss in a reference card or two with a wave if there are new terms that need explaining?

You mean, what they already do? Only that people just toss the piece of paper out with their box?

Because they did it for Contain.

Because they did it for Rogue and Grit. (And even the fact that R&V Squadrons are 1 Model!)

Because they did it for Flotillas....

And I'd like to actually push that point a little, too...

The Rules Reference Guide, and the FAQ... Neither of them actually tell you to how to use the "Contain" Defense Token. So everyone who is using Ships with it.... did you keep your Piece of Paper that states how it is used ....

Because it could be argued that without that, you cannot actually use Contain for anything, as it is not in the rules...

In fact, until it is Errata'd in as a Defense Token as part of the RRG, it could be argued even having the piece wont matter, as it could be considered a "Note" (even though I'd disagree, its official FFG documentation after all)....

The question is... Do we want, expect, and Demand that everything be written down exactly, and accept the fact that gaming civilisation collapses when it is not... Or do we give some leeway and some time, and accept that everyone is human and fallible (because I sure as **** am)...

This is the case, where perhaps a little tighter wording (or, y'know, advice that is likely ot be given in time!) will be enough.

But I stand by my point that there are already so many points and demands that "THIS NEEDS AN FAQ", when really, it doesn't.

It needs you to stop being a ****.

Could be they toss in a reference card or two with a wave if there are new terms that need explaining?

You mean, what they already do? Only that people just toss the piece of paper out with their box?

Because they did it for Contain.

Because they did it for Rogue and Grit. (And even the fact that R&V Squadrons are 1 Model!)

Because they did it for Flotillas....

That may have been what I had in mind...

Could be they toss in a reference card or two with a wave if there are new terms that need explaining?

You mean, what they already do? Only that people just toss the piece of paper out with their box?

Because they did it for Contain.

Because they did it for Rogue and Grit. (And even the fact that R&V Squadrons are 1 Model!)

Because they did it for Flotillas....

That may have been what I had in mind...

Its a distinct possibility, with the keyword "Replace" at least...

I'm just waiting for someone to actually argue that you can't use Contain Tokens... Because the lack of that argument is pseudo-validating the "don't stress and just play." point