Under Purple:

Waited for an ISD to maneuver.

Moved forward and with FC, placed Keyan, Norra and 2 B-Wings on the side-shield of an ISD.

Took next activation (because I'm Rebels with Activation Advantage) with Yavaris, and had Norra and a B-Wing Double Tap, and then when the shields were down, had Keyan Double-Reroll Tap...

All but dropped that ISD from Full Health to 4 hull remaining.

Under Purple:

Waited for an ISD to maneuver.

Moved forward and with FC, placed Keyan, Norra and 2 B-Wings on the side-shield of an ISD.

Took next activation (because I'm Rebels with Activation Advantage) with Yavaris, and had Norra and a B-Wing Double Tap, and then when the shields were down, had Keyan Double-Reroll Tap...

All but dropped that ISD from Full Health to 4 hull remaining.

Don't get me wrong - the example you give is a very powerful albeit resource heavy one. If this is the way it works, then this must be about the only example that makes the card worth its while. So, unless you take Yavaris, and all the rest of the stuff you mention, this card is unlikely to be used. Requiring two squad command activations in a turn to get anything from the launched fighters is just too much for the loss you get in activations during setup, and so Purple makes it a niche card for a certain list type.

If it is the other way, I could see it used in a whole variety of lists - including imperial - because it isn't so resource heavy and it doesn't interact with Yavaris in the manner you state above.

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.

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.

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.

Hey, we got Cluster Bombs , didn't we?

First of all: I really don't know what the hell I will do with this upgrade before a new faq.

It is pretty obvious that the wording is the worst.

Anyway I think that the thing ffg wanted to replace with "instead" was not the activation of the squadrons rather than the activation order mechanic. I mean something like "instead a normal activation (move and shoot) you can place and shot but you can't move if you do this"

Of course it is an assumption as bigger as others and I won't give any credit to myself.

well if no Faq comes out maybe we should just not allow the card...since a ruling either way would be pretty swingy with damage potential. That and if someone were to win with an incorrect judgement then there would always be an asterix beside ya. lol. Like you got to use steroids before they were banned. ha.

Follow the Orange

if someone were to win with an incorrect judgement then there would always be an asterix beside ya

well if no Faq comes out maybe we should just not allow the card...since a ruling either way would be pretty swingy with damage potential. That and if someone were to win with an incorrect judgement then there would always be an asterix beside ya. lol. Like you got to use steroids before they were banned. ha.

I think that's a pretty harsh judgement.

Especially since we're basically calling out taint at that point.

Look at your LGS... It ran a tainted competition, your competition is lesser, it doesnt' count because you cheated by following the rules .,...

No. Don't be like that. Don't be that person who makes that assumption about someone.

Its not fair on them. Its not fair on their Judge. Its not Fair on their Marshal, and its not fair on the entirety of their Competition.

We've never even considered it in the past. I mean, if everyone who ever redirected one point to each shield while running APs and being hit by XI7s was now tainted ,

This is a big deal. We should be promoting friendly competition. Not looking at excoriating people who - quite naturally - may have done nothing wrong.

In fact, if they've gone to their Judge beforehand, and asked "What should I be doing?" and that Judge turns around and says in shorthand "Purple", tells everyone in the Competition, the Competition runs and then the FAQ rules "Orange".... NO BODY HAS DONE ANYTHING WRONG. NO ONE SHOULD BE TAINTED OR HAD THEIR PERFORMANCE OR GAMES QUESTIONED.

If you're going to do that. Then you need to enforce more than the 11 days on the entire wave for competitions.

All New Pieces must be banned until such time as every piece has been extensively understood or FAQd.

Then you'll have the fun that I have, actually trying to work out what needs an FAQ or not before a major competition....

I make no apologies for a Christmas Day Rant of this vehemence...

i dont think FFG has ever made anything ban worthy either from bad wording or just flatout broken (unlike a certain other major miniatures game...)

The two ways this is being ruled both make sense and if i was building a list for Orange and it was ruled Purple then i would be a bit bummed as i lost my "alpha strike" but i could make it work. I still hope it gets FAQ'd fast though, i am finding myself avoiding the card for now but i wouldnt be pissed someone brought it before a FAQ.

well if no Faq comes out maybe we should just not allow the card...since a ruling either way would be pretty swingy with damage potential. That and if someone were to win with an incorrect judgement then there would always be an asterix beside ya. lol. Like you got to use steroids before they were banned. ha.

I think that's a pretty harsh judgement.

Especially since we're basically calling out taint at that point.

Look at your LGS... It ran a tainted competition, your competition is lesser, it doesnt' count because you cheated by following the rules .,...

No. Don't be like that. Don't be that person who makes that assumption about someone.

Its not fair on them. Its not fair on their Judge. Its not Fair on their Marshal, and its not fair on the entirety of their Competition.

We've never even considered it in the past. I mean, if everyone who ever redirected one point to each shield while running APs and being hit by XI7s was now tainted ,

This is a big deal. We should be promoting friendly competition. Not looking at excoriating people who - quite naturally - may have done nothing wrong.

In fact, if they've gone to their Judge beforehand, and asked "What should I be doing?" and that Judge turns around and says in shorthand "Purple", tells everyone in the Competition, the Competition runs and then the FAQ rules "Orange".... NO BODY HAS DONE ANYTHING WRONG. NO ONE SHOULD BE TAINTED OR HAD THEIR PERFORMANCE OR GAMES QUESTIONED.

If you're going to do that. Then you need to enforce more than the 11 days on the entire wave for competitions.

All New Pieces must be banned until such time as every piece has been extensively understood or FAQd.

Then you'll have the fun that I have, actually trying to work out what needs an FAQ or not before a major competition....

I make no apologies for a Christmas Day Rant of this vehemence...

apparently you missed the use of LOL....and the Ha afterwards....this is only a game after all.

I did indeed miss them.

I tend to not look at suggestions in the Rules Forum in a Humour-filled or Sarcastic way.

I reply to them as if they are legitimate.

But I feel it does not change the veracity of my reply, either.

Seems like the deployment IS their movement for that turn, and then they can shoot as normal with the squadron command.

The PURPLE option would be unnecessarily complicated and the restriction on movement rather pointless since they're not activated anyway.

Not pointless at all. Squadrons can be moved by Fighter Coordination Team whether they have been activated or not.

The last sentence on the card prevents this.

Yes, but that's not all.

Under the PURPLE option, a ship can use one "squadron point" to deploy an unactivated squadron, and then another point to activate said squadron normally.

The last sentence on the card means any such activation would be limited to attacking only.

This effectively puts the nail in the coffin of the purple option. The text of the card tells us that squadrons released from the ship are activated. You cannot activate the same squadron twice in a row (barring other upgrades). It's clearly against the rules.

Again, only if it is the Squadron that is referenced by Activation, and not Ship.

Because remember, by the wording further up the Card, you are Placing them instead of activating.

Instead.

As in, in lieu of, or in replacement thereof.

As in, don't do that. Do this.

I only say this, because you are repeating an argument that was done some 10 pages ago.

If it were not ambiguous, we would not be here.

We would not need a "Eureka!"... We'd need nothing.

Only an FAQ will resolve it.

I dare say it will resolve in favour of Orange.

But we still need an FAQ to have to resolved .

All of the text in question is preceded by a squadron icon. I stopped looking at both arguments for a while and came back to try and form a second opinion. The purple view is unreasonable.

Listen, every time I apply Occam's razor to a Rules dispute, I get told I'm a moron, obstinate or being unreasonable...

Listen, every time I apply Occam's razor to a Rules dispute, I get told I'm a moron, obstinate or being unreasonable...

Oh, no Dras, don't get me wrong. You're great. It's just the interpretation I have a gripe with.

I'm not gripe-free on it, either.

As I have said, I would rule Purple for the reasons that I have stated in my post.

I fully expect it to be Orange.

But we aren't the ones to make the decision...

Hell, the whole thread on us even thinking about trying to form a framework of rules interpretations to be considered by people coming to the forums generated so much abject hate , that its best to not argue, just state the different interpretations, have a deicision yourself if you please, but actually trying to come to a conclusion , results in anger, kickback, general hate, dismissal, or people believing you are insulting their intelligence.

So we've summed up the arguments for and against.

Let's leave it to FFG now.

This is what I think... Read the card!!! The interpretation is not suppose to be so complicated.

''It can not move this activation''

You place the squadrons (those set aside squadrons), they are consider as activate, but they can't move during that turn and by the fact that they are activated, they can shoot.

So... orange

If your ship explode before the deployment of your inboard squadrons guess what... Kabooooom! They are gone.

Best luck next time (and try to release them sooner)

If your ship explode before the deployment of your inboard squadrons guess what... Kabooooom! They are gone.

I read the card.

Where does it say that on the card?

...

That's the Hazard of this Card.

It says a lot of things.... But it tells us very little.

" 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 ."

I don't think it is poorly written but poorly read.

These are two different sentences. Thus the first is a substitution sentence for the basic part of the standard Squadron Command and the second is the modifier for that squadron command.

So, instead of measuring to check what squadrons are in range, you can if you want place a squadron from your hangers onto the field. You can also still move squadrons that are already out and about which means you can move Jan or Nora into position.

Any squadron moved from the Hangers are activated thus they cant move and cant activate in the squadron phase.

It COULD be written better but the intent is pretty clear. They are activated via a squadron command but are placed from off the board.

But it only says that it cannot MOVE during the activation. Therefor it still means that you use the squadron command and deploy the squadrons. That's their "move". But they still can fire thanks to the squadron command, right? Or did I just miss that we all agree on this part?

If your ship explode before the deployment of your inboard squadrons guess what... Kabooooom! They are gone.

I read the card.

Where does it say that on the card?

...

That's the Hazard of this Card.

It says a lot of things.... But it tells us very little.

Dras, you are right on the fact that it's not write anywhere what just happen when your ship is destroyed and your squadron still inside... but I think (and that only my point of view) once again, the use of commun sense should be the answer here.

What do you think could happen to aircrafts aboard a aircraft carrier if that last one is destroyed or sink before those aircraft get airborn? I know in the SWU there is the Force and some inexplicable thing, but I don't think squadron aboard a ship who explosed should still alive. Maybe FFG judge that it was not necessery to mention it. Maybe it's because there was not enough space on the card to write it this way, Maybe it's a mistake because some person could still have a doubt about it, but I still thinking those squadrons must be take as destroyed too.

You are taking the chance to keep them not deployed at the start of the game, live with your decision. It can pay alot... and it could cost you alot too

That's why I love this game that much, you have to take hard decision that will have good or bad effect.