Ok, I understand the position of people that tell us to go with the wording of the card and don't try to make personnal interpretation. I'll go this way, I will try to look at the wording and tell me if I'm going in the wrong way.

'' Before deploying fleet' '---The timing is at the start of the game before the deployement.

'' You may set aside a number of friendly squadrons up to your squadron value ''---It's not a obligation but if you decided, you can put the same amount of squadrons aside as your squadron value of that ship equiped with RLB.

'' Next to your ship card ''---Aside of the ship card equiped with RLB. So not aside of any other ship. It is not write that you can or cannot swap them whit other ship that have RLB. They are considered as out of play until there's a action saying that you can place them on the play mat (a squadron activation).

'' For each squadron you would activate whit this command ''---The command in reference there is a squadron command, it can be a dial (who give you the full amount of your ship squadron value) or a token (who give you a single activation).

'' You may instead place 1 of your set-aside squadrons ''---You have the choice to activate squadrons as usual that surround your ship or place one of those squadrons set aside to your ship card a the start of the game.

'' Within distance 1 ''---All around your ship within the distance 1 as you wish.

'' It cannot move this activation ''---So this is considered as an activation but your squadrons place this way cannot move as normal. So they can do the last thing they can when they are activated by a squadron command... fire at ennemy at their range.

For now, I'll go with my comprenhension of this : You are not in the obligation to drop in one shot all your squadron set-aside, as long that you respect the fact that you have to wait for an activation to place them. So if the tactical situation is not well for a full deployement of your squadron set-aside, you can select the squadron near your ship card that you want to place (activated). They can shoot after their deployement but cannot move. You are not able to swap your squadrons between ship equiped with RLB (do not respect logic or theme).

For what happen when your ship is destroyed with all is squadron set-aside that ship card? There is nothing that state what we are supposed to do. Once again, if we go by logic, they should be considered as destroyed (like the ship that they are inside). If you go by what the rules say... there is nothing about this situation. So if there is no written rules, maybe we should choose to do at least something that seems logic. That only my point of view and the way I will play this modification until there is something statued by FFG. If I'm wrong (and this could be true), I will adapte myself to the new way to use this mod, but until then

'' For each squadron you would activate whit this command ''---The command in reference there is a squadron command, it can be a dial (who give you the full amount of your ship squadron value) or a token (who give you a single activation).

'' You may instead place 1 of your set-aside squadrons ''---You have the choice to activate squadrons as usual that surround your ship or place one of those squadrons set aside to your ship card a the start of the game.

The "instead" part comes down to two interpretations:

"Instead of activating a squadron, you place a set-aside squadron at distance 1"

or

"Instead of a squadron you would normally activate (i.e. one that is within range), you pick a set-aside squadron to activate"

Because of the way the sentence is structured, the object of the "instead" must be "each squadron" and cannot be a reference to the activation itself.

I think where the problem lies is that you can't just say "the set-aside squadron cannot move but can attack" is that we now have squadrons that do things instead of attacking or other things during their activations. So there isn't a clear way of specifying it other than "cannot move this activation" without being overly restrictive.

The thing is that you intend that this activation point to an hypothetical squadron activation. Someone defend that this activation point just THE activation that we already know that is ongoing, the ship one.

Follow the wording doesn't help when the words are ambiguous.

If I tell you "give me your hand" you could intend a lot of things from grasp our hands to cut yours and give it to me, just per wording.

I understand how anyone could understand that this activation refers to the squadron activation or the ship activation. I think that people who defend the ship activation have a point as long as it points to an activation we know exist. The others are building an activation from the words.

The difference between are:

A: we have an activation (the ship's one), the upgrade talk about "this activation" ergo "this" point to this activation.

B: we don't know if we have an squadron activation, the upgrade talk about "this activation" ergo we must have a squadron activation which "this" is pointing.

I don't know why people get confused about the ''activation'' thing?

There is a ''squadron command logo'' activation in the card just before the description on how to use it (activate those squadrons). As for some other modification that are use with those same kind of logo. In example, Flight Controllers, the same logo (squadron command) is before the description on the card. Nothing new. Same old way to use stuff, only new applications.

Upon further consideration, I now believe the squads get placed and then attack. I believe the card intends to say this:

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

Bearing in mind that the squadron symbol resolves as part of the activation but not a replacement for... I now believe the intent of the card is to place the squadrons that were set aside. They get to attack, but they don't get to fly away. Still a tough to decipher card, but that is my current understanding.

Welcome to #teamorange.

We have citrus fruit.

And some vitamins, maybe.

I'm #teamFAQ

I don't know why people get confused about the ''activation'' thing?

There is a ''squadron command logo'' activation in the card just before the description on how to use it (activate those squadrons). As for some other modification that are use with those same kind of logo. In example, Flight Controllers, the same logo (squadron command) is before the description on the card. Nothing new. Same old way to use stuff, only new applications.

The icon is not an "activate squadron" icon. It is a squadron command that is used to activate squadron. A navigation command is not a maneuver. The icon allow you to trigger an upgrade when resolving the matching command. Usually this upgrades add effects to the command but not always. We have here an upgrade that change the default resolution of the command. FC increase the anti-squadron armament WHEN you resolve a squadron command but only if you ACTIVATE squadrons. If you don't activate squadrons there won't be a single squadron with bonus.

With RLB you can trigger it when you resolve a squadron command. You can resolve commands without resolving their effects. This is cover by the RG or the FAQ (I don't remember right now). It means that a squadron command doesn't mean a squadron activation. I do it all the time with Engine Techs just to move "at speed 2 with 4 yaws".

The fact that it says you cannot move makes me think you can still attack. With that said an ISD with a Rhymerball in its hull with a flight commander would be amazing. Keep your bombers protected and after you attack and move, drop the bombers and have a solid alpha strike on a ship!

As long as you are not being somewhat 'blinkered' by the fact that - Upgrade Cards don't necessarily have to be worked to a variety of lists.

Not sure I really understand the relevance of your post, but let's respond by saying that if I were the designer this would be a factor for me.

Design a very niche card with a seriously overpowered effect if you can manufacture the specific Rebel scenario to fire it.

Or ...

Design a card that opens up an interesting new element to the game that can work for a variety of Imperial and Rebel lists.

I don't know if you've ever read an article about the three types of Magic Players, but the designers in that article specifically said that there are players to whom "OP if you can manufacture the exact scenario" is the reason they play, and the designers make some cards with that in mind. Cards that are stupid to bring unless everything breaks just right, but then they are awesome.

I see no reason why FFG wouldn't use a similar philosophy. After all, look at Slicer Tools.

As long as you are not being somewhat 'blinkered' by the fact that - Upgrade Cards don't necessarily have to be worked to a variety of lists.

Not sure I really understand the relevance of your post, but let's respond by saying that if I were the designer this would be a factor for me.

Design a very niche card with a seriously overpowered effect if you can manufacture the specific Rebel scenario to fire it.

Or ...

Design a card that opens up an interesting new element to the game that can work for a variety of Imperial and Rebel lists.

I don't know if you've ever read an article about the three types of Magic Players, but the designers in that article specifically said that there are players to whom "OP if you can manufacture the exact scenario" is the reason they play, and the designers make some cards with that in mind. Cards that are stupid to bring unless everything breaks just right, but then they are awesome.

I see no reason why FFG wouldn't use a similar philosophy. After all, look at Slicer Tools.

Two problems with what is an otherwise completely reasonable assertion;

1. The average Magic expansion nowadays based on some very quick google research is about 165 cards, which is a considerably higher number then the amount of new upgrades we see. Also they are way more frequent, and as such a design philosophy that caters to that kind of play may work in one arena and not so much the other;

2. Slicer Tools is a fine upgrade pretty much regardless of situation. Its best as a way of denying squadron commands where your opponent has no dial manipulation sure, but you can always get some utility out of it.

As long as you are not being somewhat 'blinkered' by the fact that - Upgrade Cards don't necessarily have to be worked to a variety of lists.

Not sure I really understand the relevance of your post, but let's respond by saying that if I were the designer this would be a factor for me.

Design a very niche card with a seriously overpowered effect if you can manufacture the specific Rebel scenario to fire it.

Or ...

Design a card that opens up an interesting new element to the game that can work for a variety of Imperial and Rebel lists.

I don't know if you've ever read an article about the three types of Magic Players, but the designers in that article specifically said that there are players to whom "OP if you can manufacture the exact scenario" is the reason they play, and the designers make some cards with that in mind. Cards that are stupid to bring unless everything breaks just right, but then they are awesome.

I see no reason why FFG wouldn't use a similar philosophy. After all, look at Slicer Tools.

Two problems with what is an otherwise completely reasonable assertion;

1. The average Magic expansion nowadays based on some very quick google research is about 165 cards, which is a considerably higher number then the amount of new upgrades we see. Also they are way more frequent, and as such a design philosophy that caters to that kind of play may work in one arena and not so much the other;

2. Slicer Tools is a fine upgrade pretty much regardless of situation. Its best as a way of denying squadron commands where your opponent has no dial manipulation sure, but you can always get some utility out of it.

That's true on both counts, but I would observe that a Magic deck also has a large number of cards, while an Armada fleet will only have ten to twenty upgrades, most of the time. Tossing in a few cards for the puzzle-solving player is still worth doing.

And Slicer Tools are great, provided you can get into the right place at the right time. They aren't as complex to use as the proposed use of RLB, but it's also not as easy to use as Screed.

Speaking as one of those players, I'm happy to see a few cards that are "curiosities." I'm trying to build a set of Ackbar, Home One, and two CR-90 with Quad Turbolasers. Wish I had a few more Quad Turbolasers, I'd go big with it.

Its already been suggested and I agree that there is too much reading into the card and too little taking it exactly for what the words mean. I do think the card needs to be clarified but on paper what the card says is that.

For each squadron you would activate with this command. This is by the definition of the English language refering to the Squad Command and the activate is the activation of the squad as is normal for the command by the standard rules. So you are using the squad command to activate squads as every example in the game when using the squad command and for each squadron you activate with the squad command you may do the next part of the action instead of a normal activation of the squad.

You may instead place 1 of your set-aside squadrons within distance 1. It cannot move this activation. This is just a normal activation of a squad, you activate, move and attack. The only special rule here is that you cannot move during the activation of this squad, but other than that its a normal activation hence you can move and attack (minus the move for the special rule) hence attack.

There is no other meaning that can be derived from this wording and ultimatly this will be the way it will be explained. If its not, then what it says on the card is not what it means (in the English language), which is a possibility (intention of the designer for it to do something other than what it says, its not unusual in card games).

The "Instead" is simply a reference to the fact that during a normal activation of a squad you can move and attack. Instead you may place a unit 1 from your ship before your normal activation, again, in this activation you can't move the ship, but still a normal activation in every other regard.

Upon further consideration, I now believe the squads get placed and then attack. I believe the card intends to say this:

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

Bearing in mind that the squadron symbol resolves as part of the activation but not a replacement for... I now believe the intent of the card is to place the squadrons that were set aside. They get to attack, but they don't get to fly away. Still a tough to decipher card, but that is my current understanding.

What changed your mind. I made these same arguments

After 16 pages, my take away is:

Team Orange wants an alternative squadron activation.

Team Purple wants an alternative squadron deployment.

FFG went full Wizkids on this one.

After 16 pages, my take away is:

Team Orange wants an alternative squadron activation.

Team Purple wants an alternative squadron deployment.

FFG went full Wizkids on this one.

I really don't think so, people have just made it more complicated by the presumption that the card changes the rules, but it doesn't. Same rules as with any other card apply with the card creating the exception. In this case instead of activating a squad, moving and attacking, you can deploy and attack with the exception to the normal activation rule of being able to move.

People are trying to stretch the meaning of the word instead or activation but there is no reason for it. You apply standard rules to all cards and card effects with the card creating the exception. This will be the way the card works when it's explained I. The FAQ. If it's not this way, the FAQ will alter how the intended to word it but as written this is how it should work.

BigKahuna -

To use the same wording:

"For Every Apple you Would Eat, throw a banana at the wall instead."

- You don't actually eat apples.

- You don't eat Bananas.

- If you do anything in regards to this, you're throwing Bananas at Walls.

That is the reason why people consider "instead" important there.

EDIT: Can you tell what sort of Mood my Toddler was in this morning?!

that would be confusing if it was not for the fact that the game has standard rules that always apply with the exception to anything the cards apply. The standard rule for activating a squad is move and attack. The exception is instead you deploy a unit and not move. Everything Else in the standard rule applies which leaves attacking. It's not mentioned because it's covered by the standard rules same as every other card in the entire game.

Your example assumes the words are the only thing that applies which is not the case in Armada. The standard rules ALWAYS apply unless a card states otherwise.

We still read it in English.

And doing something instead of doing something, means you don't do that something...

As it is, I'll be able to report on Team Purple at a Regional, as that's the way the Marshal just ruled it.... I ruled it Team Orange for the Vassal World Cup, but I couldn't exactly make my own call for Calgary and the Store Owner has done his deep reading and decided...

So at the very least, if we don't get an FAQ, we'll see how people react.

It does say instead but English or otherwise the rule of the game is the cards are exceptions to the rules, anything omitted falls back to the standard rules. There is in no way you can presume anything about the word instead that isn't explicitly stated as an exception to the standard rule that when you activate, you can attack. It does make an exception to movent.

But you can only attack if you're activated - that's a core rule - instead of activating means... you don't activate.

Ergo, you can't attack.

There are ways of moving outside of activating, though - and that's what the bottom line clarifies - you cannot do things like Fighter Coordination Teams.

It doesn't say "instead of activating", quite the opposite it says you cannot move during "this activation". It's very specific that it is an activation. So you can't move during the activation, as is the normal, standard rule, but does not create any other exceptions which by the default rules of the game means all other standard rule applies. Hence you activate, move, attack.. The only exception to the standard rule is that you can deploy the unit put away and you can't move during its activation. You can't read into it what isn't there and we are always obligated to follow the standard rules when an exception is not specified. Every errata in the past has worked exactly the same way.

I agree the language could be clearer but in the absence of clarity the normal rules apply.

While I agree with your interpretation I dispute that it is "very clear". I present exhibit A, the last sixteen pages of discussion.

While I agree with your interpretation I dispute that it is "very clear". I present exhibit A, the last sixteen pages of discussion.

Are you quoting me? Because I'm certain I did not at any point claim it was clear. I think it's very unclear and I do believe it's very unclear wording on the card but I do beleive in the absence of clarity in the exceptions, aka cards, the standard rules are applied. I do think eventually they will FAQ it this way as they have always in the past.