Text as written (second half only - first is kinda self explanatory). (Btw, I second this as the most poorly written card.)

" For each squadron you would activate with this command , you may instead place 1 of your set-aside squadrons within distance 1. It cannot move this activation ."

First off, I see where the confusion is coming from, but I think some basic assumptions need to be made to arrive at the correct interpretation of the card.

1) The 'instead' does not override the 'activate' - it merely provides a replacement effect to activate and place/attack the squadrons you have set aside instead of activating and moving/attacking with squadrons already on the board.

- You would still be 'activating' the squadron as part of the effect

2) The 'activation' text in the second sentence refers back to the squadron that you have placed using the 'instead' text as part of the 'activate' clause. I think the reason this text was added was more for the sake of not being able to deploy/move/attack with the squadron and not FCT, as we have already determined that FCT is not a 'move' as defined in the rules (see Yavaris interaction).

I think the card should read instead as:

"For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead [ activate and] place 1 of your set-aside squadrons within distance 1. [A squadron activated in this manner] cannot move [as part of] this activation."

But that's not what the card says. Cards referring to you activating always refer to the ship the card is equipped to( rules reference page 13 Upgrade cards). The last sentence just prevents you from moving the squad with FCTs during that SHIPs activation. If the placed squad was immediately activated the card would say that.

I'll be needing to do more research here, as I am at work, but I will be making a more nuanced argument with support later.

However, I will point out that by my interpretation of the card it does say that you are immediately activating the squadron, as my argument is that the instead does not replace the activation element of the sentence, just your options for activating a squadron.

@Dras: Totes. I think this may in fact be the first card worthy of a rules discussion for reasons of indefiniteness.

The accounts are generally one-off and created specifically for maleficence. They end up reported, banned and deleted.

Sometimes they hit my facebook page instead.

I'm usually quiet about it. I posted this one, in particular, because it was fresh, and it serves as a reminded for the greater community to treat each other with respect when getting into discussions such as these... Because this does threaten and promise to be a heated one

Oh, trust me, while egg and I will probably disagree on this forever, I still respect him and anyone on this forum. These discussions are what make this game great. With other games, if I have a rules question, and I can't find an answer I usually just drop the game.

But I agree with what was said up top. Hate mail is weak sauce. Get some cajones and post your name with it. Otherwise you are a useless tool that gets ignored.

Something else I'd point out in the "as intended" end of it is the placement could be considered the movement part of activation i.e. from the bay to the battlefield.

Text as written (second half only - first is kinda self explanatory). (Btw, I second this as the most poorly written card.)

" For each squadron you would activate with this command , you may instead place 1 of your set-aside squadrons within distance 1. It cannot move this activation ."

First off, I see where the confusion is coming from, but I think some basic assumptions need to be made to arrive at the correct interpretation of the card.

1) The 'instead' does not override the 'activate' - it merely provides a replacement effect to activate and place/attack the squadrons you have set aside instead of activating and moving/attacking with squadrons already on the board.

- You would still be 'activating' the squadron as part of the effect

2) The 'activation' text in the second sentence refers back to the squadron that you have placed using the 'instead' text as part of the 'activate' clause. I think the reason this text was added was more for the sake of not being able to deploy/move/attack with the squadron and not FCT, as we have already determined that FCT is not a 'move' as defined in the rules (see Yavaris interaction).

I think the card should read instead as:

"For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead [ activate and] place 1 of your set-aside squadrons within distance 1. [A squadron activated in this manner] cannot move [as part of] this activation."

But that's not what the card says. Cards referring to you activating always refer to the ship the card is equipped to( rules reference page 13 Upgrade cards). The last sentence just prevents you from moving the squad with FCTs during that SHIPs activation. If the placed squad was immediately activated the card would say that.

That's one way of reading it . (pun intended)

Text as written (second half only - first is kinda self explanatory). (Btw, I second this as the most poorly written card.)

" For each squadron you would activate with this command , you may instead place 1 of your set-aside squadrons within distance 1. It cannot move this activation ."

First off, I see where the confusion is coming from, but I think some basic assumptions need to be made to arrive at the correct interpretation of the card.

1) The 'instead' does not override the 'activate' - it merely provides a replacement effect to activate and place/attack the squadrons you have set aside instead of activating and moving/attacking with squadrons already on the board.

- You would still be 'activating' the squadron as part of the effect

2) The 'activation' text in the second sentence refers back to the squadron that you have placed using the 'instead' text as part of the 'activate' clause. I think the reason this text was added was more for the sake of not being able to deploy/move/attack with the squadron and not FCT, as we have already determined that FCT is not a 'move' as defined in the rules (see Yavaris interaction).

I think the card should read instead as:

"For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead [ activate and] place 1 of your set-aside squadrons within distance 1. [A squadron activated in this manner] cannot move [as part of] this activation."

But that's not what the card says. Cards referring to you activating always refer to the ship the card is equipped to( rules reference page 13 Upgrade cards). The last sentence just prevents you from moving the squad with FCTs during that SHIPs activation. If the placed squad was immediately activated the card would say that.

That's one way of reading it . (pun intended)

It really does depend on what your definition of It is.

(But not really in this case, I think the only clear thing about the second half of this card is the 'It')

Steven's interpretation is exactly what I was trying to convey earlier:

Launching a squadron costs one of your mothership's squadron "points" (activations), but the launched squadron is not activated by the launching.

The launched squadron can still be activated by the mothership as part of the same command (i.e. "this activation" = the mothership's activation), if it has squadron points left, but in that case it can only attack, not move.

I think the card's wording, though ugly, can only possibly be interpreted this way.

No.

Once dropped, the squadron is activated. It can shoot, but cannot move (this activation).

Maybe that's what FFG means. And it's indeed quite an expensive upgrade if you don't get a free shot when deploying.

But that really isn't what it says on the card. The card explicitly indicates that you do something else (placing a squadron) instead of activating a squadron. And there is no indication, neither on the card nor in the RRG, that placing a squadron also activates it. I understand where you're coming from, by inferring that "this activation" must imply that the squadron is activated. But "this activation" can certainly refer to the ship's activation, which is the only activation that is definitely happening (and not merely implied by circular logic).

RAW vs RAI, maybe, and I can see FFG ruling it either way.

You are applying the "instead of activating a squadron" to the squadron you are placing. The normal function of a squad command is activating a squadron, so you are doing this new ability in place of that.

So, instead of choosing the X-Wing at range 3 of you to activate, you instead place and X-Wing at range 1 of you. The second sentence implies that the squad is activated and cannot move.

The activation has nothing to do with the ship, because the "it" is referring to the squadron in the previous sentence. That is simply an egnlish/grammatical error you are making. No where does the card talk about the ships activation.

I find it interesting how there are different interpretations of the card but I understand where you are coming from though. The more I read it, it seems so crystal clear that you can use a squad command to drop a squad and attack with it and is considered activated. I may be wrong, but neither of us will know until FFG says something.

I'm sort of coming around to your interpretation from a "common sense" (read: RAI) point of view.

From a point of view of formal logic, though, I still stand by my RAW reading.

To clarify, this is how I parse the last sentence:

"It [i.e. the squadron you just placed] cannot move this activation [i.e. the activation currently going on]"

But the only activation presently going on is the ship's activation, as the card has just instructed you to deploy a new squadron instead of activating an existing one (i.e. no new activations have been "created" yet). So to say that this sentence implies that the squadron just placed has also been activated doesn't really stand formal scrutiny. It's circular logic: the same sentence that modifies the activation would also make it retroactively exist to begin with.

Yeah this is pretty cut and dry to me. I see how others are being confused but I feel like you need to do sine rules gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion. It's specifically talking about squadrons the whole time at no point does it refer to a ship activation.

Yeah this is pretty cut and dry to me. I see how others are being confused but I feel like you need to do sine rules gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion. It's specifically talking about squadrons the whole time at no point does it refer to a ship activation.

By using the word "You", and doing anything (specifically a Squadron Command) - is referring to the Ship activation.

Yeah this is pretty cut and dry to me. I see how others are being confused but I feel like you need to do sine rules gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion. It's specifically talking about squadrons the whole time at no point does it refer to a ship activation.

By using the word "You", and doing anything (specifically a Squadron Command) - is referring to the Ship activation.

I been trying to point this out, it's clearly stated in the rules reference under upgrade cards.

I just don't know anymore.

Yeah this is pretty cut and dry to me. I see how others are being confused but I feel like you need to do sine rules gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion. It's specifically talking about squadrons the whole time at no point does it refer to a ship activation.

By using the word "You", and doing anything (specifically a Squadron Command) - is referring to the Ship activation.

What does that have to do with the last sentence?

Of course, this would all go away if the card said:

"For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set-aside squadrons within distance 1 and activate it . It cannot move this activation."

I do think this is likely what FFG wanted the card to say but could not due to space constraints (are there any cards with a smaller font size?). And it is equally likely, though far from certain, that the inevitable FAQ entry will rule it this way.

But the fact of the matter is, that's not what the card says.

Of course, this would all go away if the card said:

"For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set-aside squadrons within distance 1 and activate it . It cannot move this activation."

I do think this is likely what FFG wanted the card to say but could not due to space constraints (are there any cards with a smaller font size?). And it is equally likely, though far from certain, that the inevitable FAQ entry will rule it this way.

But the fact of the matter is, that's not what the card says.

Grav Shift Reroute has the smallest font so far, still.

Yeah this is pretty cut and dry to me. I see how others are being confused but I feel like you need to do sine rules gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion. It's specifically talking about squadrons the whole time at no point does it refer to a ship activation.

By using the word "You", and doing anything (specifically a Squadron Command) - is referring to the Ship activation.

What does that have to do with the last sentence?

You get to move the squad with FCT, as the card is referring to the squads activation.

Or you don't get to move the squad with FCT, as the card is referring to the ships activation.

We know from the RRG that any upgrade attached to the ship refers to itself if it uses "you" in the card. RLB says you place squads, and it (the squad) cannot move during this activation (referring to the ships activation).

Yeah this is pretty cut and dry to me. I see how others are being confused but I feel like you need to do sine rules gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion. It's specifically talking about squadrons the whole time at no point does it refer to a ship activation.

By using the word "You", and doing anything (specifically a Squadron Command) - is referring to the Ship activation.

What does that have to do with the last sentence?

Nothing, or Everything.

Depends on your side of the discussion.

Really though, how hard is it to release an FAQ when a wave is released?

If their playtesters are any good at the game, this must have come up at some point.

Really though, how hard is it to release an FAQ when a wave is released?

If their playtesters are any good at the game, this must have come up at some point.

Again, not saying I essentially disagree (We were promised)...

But, this is further irrelevent....

The Wave Hasn't Been Released Yet.

Of course, this would all go away if the card said:

"For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set-aside squadrons within distance 1 and activate it . It cannot move this activation."

I do think this is likely what FFG wanted the card to say but could not due to space constraints (are there any cards with a smaller font size?). And it is equally likely, though far from certain, that the inevitable FAQ entry will rule it this way.

But the fact of the matter is, that's not what the card says.

Grav Shift Reroute has the smallest font so far, still.

So in fact RLB could have been worded (slightly) more verbosely?

The plot thickens.

Yeah this is pretty cut and dry to me. I see how others are being confused but I feel like you need to do sine rules gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion. It's specifically talking about squadrons the whole time at no point does it refer to a ship activation.

By using the word "You", and doing anything (specifically a Squadron Command) - is referring to the Ship activation.

What does that have to do with the last sentence?

You get to move the squad with FCT, as the card is referring to the squads activation.

Or you don't get to move the squad with FCT, as the card is referring to the ships activation.

We know from the RRG that any upgrade attached to the ship refers to itself if it uses "you" in the card. RLB says you place squads, and it (the squad) cannot move during this activation (referring to the ships activation).

Correct but the most sentence didn't say "your" activation it days "it's".

So it's the squadrons activation

Yeah this is pretty cut and dry to me. I see how others are being confused but I feel like you need to do sine rules gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion. It's specifically talking about squadrons the whole time at no point does it refer to a ship activation.

By using the word "You", and doing anything (specifically a Squadron Command) - is referring to the Ship activation.

What does that have to do with the last sentence?

You get to move the squad with FCT, as the card is referring to the squads activation.

Or you don't get to move the squad with FCT, as the card is referring to the ships activation.

We know from the RRG that any upgrade attached to the ship refers to itself if it uses "you" in the card. RLB says you place squads, and it (the squad) cannot move during this activation (referring to the ships activation).

Correct but the most sentence didn't say "your" activation it days "it's".

So it's the squadrons activation

... You mean, its Squadron Activation that its not getting, because you're doing the whole placing thing instead ?

Really though, how hard is it to release an FAQ when a wave is released?

If their playtesters are any good at the game, this must have come up at some point.

Again, not saying I essentially disagree (We were promised)...

But, this is further irrelevent....

The Wave Hasn't Been Released Yet.

Oh shove off mate.

You're about to get some more flaming personal messages

yeah I don't see how the "instead" is getting ignored here....

That sentence doesn't leave a lot to interpretation does it?

" For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set-aside squadrons within distance 1"

What is unclear about that? If I say "Hey man, instead of that pie you ordered, you can have a set aside piece of cake." are you unclear on what your desert options are?

Really though, how hard is it to release an FAQ when a wave is released?

If their playtesters are any good at the game, this must have come up at some point.

Again, not saying I essentially disagree (We were promised)...

But, this is further irrelevent....

The Wave Hasn't Been Released Yet.

Oh shove off mate.

You're about to get some more flaming personal messages

Joking Aside - You are right though.

Michael Gernes is on Email record stating that the intention was to get a Wave 5 / Corellian Conflict Centric FAQ Update out as soon as possible around release ...

So, we are waiting for that.

I just hope that we are not waiting too long ... As both Calgary Regionals - And FFG HQ Regionals are being held on the 7th of January...

I'm usually the one who makes the Decisions on FAQs and Judge-Calls for the Sentry Box League, and the Store Manager typically ticks the boxes on my judgements...

But ...

This is something I was looking at potentially heavily investing in, as a tactic... And I don't feel comfortable both making a call, and then abusing the crap out of it in the same Week......

yeah I don't see how the "instead" is getting ignored here....

That sentence doesn't leave a lot to interpretation does it?

" For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set-aside squadrons within distance 1"

What is unclear about that? If I say "Hey man, instead of that pie you ordered, you can have a set aside piece of cake." are you unclear on what your desert options are?

No but I still got desert.... Just a different kind