The wording of that card is kinda ugly.

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/15578059_733889350120102_3450483882259885267_o.jpg?oh=051233ef8c6f81de2b4888a37dd1416d&oe=58E568CC

EDIT #2 Dec. 28*****

************************************************************************************************************************

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 position.

PASTED FROM FURTHER DOWN THE THREAD. THIS IS MY CURRENT UNDERSTANDING:

******************************************************************************************************************

So trying to understand. Here's the bottom half card text (I think the first half is crystal clear)

Quote

[squadron]: 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.

Okay so you do a squadron activation. You trigger this effect, but that doesn't replace the actual squadron activation order.

Then for EACH squadron you WOULD activate with this command you may INSTEAD place 1 set aside squadron within distance 1. It cannot move this activation.

To me the instead is absolute and is basically an OR.

So for each squadron activation you have (4 on an MC80 for ex) you may EITHER place a set aside squadron OR activate a squadron as usual.

To me that means you could do this:

Activation 1: Drop a B-Wing.

Activation 2: Activate that B-Wing. It cannot move, but does get to attack.

Activation 3: Drop another B-Wing.

Activation 4: Activate another squadron within range as normal.

That's my best attempt at logically understanding the card.

If I read this correctly, you've come around 180 and are now in the "when squadrons are dropped, they are activated and can shoot, but not move" camp?

If they mean it in any other way, they did a really poor writing of the card.

The argument about RLB has been resolved. The squads are activated.

The card was poorly written.

The wording of that card is kinda ugly.

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/15578059_733889350120102_3450483882259885267_o.jpg?oh=051233ef8c6f81de2b4888a37dd1416d&oe=58E568CC

EDIT #2 Dec. 28*****

************************************************************************************************************************

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 position.

PASTED FROM FURTHER DOWN THE THREAD. THIS IS MY CURRENT UNDERSTANDING:

******************************************************************************************************************

So trying to understand. Here's the bottom half card text (I think the first half is crystal clear)

Quote

[squadron]: 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.

Okay so you do a squadron activation. You trigger this effect, but that doesn't replace the actual squadron activation order.

Then for EACH squadron you WOULD activate with this command you may INSTEAD place 1 set aside squadron within distance 1. It cannot move this activation.

To me the instead is absolute and is basically an OR.

So for each squadron activation you have (4 on an MC80 for ex) you may EITHER place a set aside squadron OR activate a squadron as usual.

To me that means you could do this:

Activation 1: Drop a B-Wing.

Activation 2: Activate that B-Wing. It cannot move, but does get to attack.

Activation 3: Drop another B-Wing.

Activation 4: Activate another squadron within range as normal.

That's my best attempt at logically understanding the card.

If I read this correctly, you've come around 180 and are now in the "when squadrons are dropped, they are activated and can shoot, but not move" camp?

I don't think you read this correctly.

I'm even more confused than before.

What does he mean exactly?

Why are there contradictory updates in the leading post?

#helpapoorschmuk

What he says is that, because the squadrons drop unactivated, you can still activate them - even with the same ship that drops them. So an MC80 could use 2 "squadron points" to drop squadrons, and the other 2 to activate them.

Then why this???

" 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 position."

Maybe *I* am the one who didn't read this correctly.

What he says is that, because the squadrons drop unactivated, you can still activate them - even with the same ship that drops them. So an MC80 could use 2 "squadron points" to drop squadrons, and the other 2 to activate them.

This is where the whole misunderstanding of the 'instead' comes in.

The 'instead' is not instead of activating; it refers to the squadron not the activation. I believe it is supposed to read - Instead of normally activating a squadron that is already in the play area you may 'instead' activate one of your carried squadrons. This way you can't dump your load of carried squadrons and then activate some other squadrons.

So your MC-80 with a squadron command can activate 4 squadrons - some of which are normal activations but you may 'instead' use some of your activations to launch carried squadrons. Those squadrons may not move this activation.

I agree it is poorly written but i do think it is pretty clear how it works, although 18 pages of discussion may say otherwise!

Maybe *I* am the one who didn't read this correctly.

Maybe...IT'S A TRAP!!!

What he says is that, because the squadrons drop unactivated, you can still activate them - even with the same ship that drops them. So an MC80 could use 2 "squadron points" to drop squadrons, and the other 2 to activate them.

This is where the whole misunderstanding of the 'instead' comes in.

The 'instead' is not instead of activating; it refers to the squadron not the activation. I believe it is supposed to read - Instead of normally activating a squadron that is already in the play area you may 'instead' activate one of your carried squadrons. This way you can't dump your load of carried squadrons and then activate some other squadrons.

So your MC-80 with a squadron command can activate 4 squadrons - some of which are normal activations but you may 'instead' use some of your activations to launch carried squadrons. Those squadrons may not move this activation.

I agree it is poorly written but i do think it is pretty clear how it works, although 18 pages of discussion may say otherwise!

Aside from the 18 pages of disussion, how can it be both "poorly writen" and "pretty clear"? One would kind of imply the other is not true

I agree it is poorly written but i do think it is pretty clear how it works, although 18 pages of discussion may say otherwise!

Aside from the 18 pages of disussion, how can it be both "poorly writen" and "pretty clear"? One would kind of imply the other is not true

Well it's both!

I thought it was pretty clear what the card did but obviously others don't. The wording could have been better but might have been too much text. In other words, it's clear (to me at any rate) what the card does but it certainly could have been written better otherwise we wouldn't be having 18 pages of discussion

It is clear for everyone. But everyone is understanding it different

It is clear for everyone. But everyone is understanding it different

Not everyone.

#theonethatsstillconfused

It is clear for everyone. But everyone is understanding it different

Not everyone.

#theonethatsstillconfused

I know I'm still confused as to how this was even a discussion in the first place.

Why is this a discussion anymore? I thought Michael Gernes made a ruling at FFG Regionals that placed squads can attack.

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.

I am sorry, but it say clearly instead.

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.

... you would activate , ... you may instead .

The squadrons are not activated by the rapid launch bays.

The sentense at the end "it cannot move this activation" could also means that they cannot move when they are later activated in this round. Eighter by another ship that activate them or by themself in the squadron phase. They just cannot move, but they can attack.

If they mean it in any other way, they did a really poor writing of the card.

The card is poorly written no matter how you interpret it. Whether its activated or not is debatable, but it very clearly says at the end "Squadrons cannot move this activation". That is a very specific, I don't see how you can take "When they are later activated in this round" out of that. It says "this activation", that cannot be translated to mean anything else except exactly what it says... the question is what does it mean by activation. Is it the squad activation or the ship activation?

That part of it is completely unclear. If its referring to the squad, then it must mean that the squad is activated, there would be no other way to interpret it. If it means the ship, then it means the squad is not activated, suggesting that if you activate the ship later during this ships activation it still can't move but could attack. Aka as suggest, you spend 1 squad point to put it out and another to activate it to attack (still not able to move).

I will surrender and say that its impossible to know what they mean and they could end up ruling it either way. My suspicion is that they will rule in favor of having the squad activate, but who knows. Its a messy card.

I agree it is poorly written but i do think it is pretty clear how it works, although 18 pages of discussion may say otherwise!

Aside from the 18 pages of disussion, how can it be both "poorly writen" and "pretty clear"? One would kind of imply the other is not true

Well it's both!

I thought it was pretty clear what the card did but obviously others don't. The wording could have been better but might have been too much text. In other words, it's clear (to me at any rate) what the card does but it certainly could have been written better otherwise we wouldn't be having 18 pages of discussion

I kind of get this.

For me, when I read the card, I thought it was clear that you still activated the fighters, and the only caveat was that you placed them instead of moving them, and afterwards you could shoot.

However, I could see how others arrived at a different interpretation, hence the agreement that the card is poorly worded.

Why is this a discussion anymore? I thought Michael Gernes made a ruling at FFG Regionals that placed squads can attack.

Did he?

Then this is pretty much a done deal then.

OP agrees. MG agrees. I agree.

Why is this a discussion anymore?

because no-one has ever believed any of us without an actual faq update?

Why is this a discussion anymore?

because no-one has ever believed any of us without an actual faq update?

Which is reasonable given that FFG has, on numerous occasions, made official rulings at tournaments only to do an about-face in the FAQ.

We certainly have very strong indications of how the card is intended to operate. But until it's in black and white there is still doubt.

Why is this a discussion anymore? I thought Michael Gernes made a ruling at FFG Regionals that placed squads can attack.

Because it is not a legal ruling just because someone (i know who Michael is...) made a rule on a regional. Same with the E-Mails. They are nice, and good to know how it will be, but as long as there is no writen rule in a FAQ it is just a suggestion. No rule.

There have been already cases where a rule was different ahead of the FAQ. But later it was different to this rule in the FAQ.

And secondly: I found this rule rather strange and unlogically. At least when you read the card. Instead is instead and not "do this and the part you were skipping with the instead".

So i will wait for the FAQ . And it does not matter for us in germany at all. The Wave 5 will be legal for tournament in 3-4 month. So more than enough time for a FAQ .

Why is this a discussion anymore?

because no-one has ever believed any of us without an actual faq update?

Which is reasonable given that FFG has, on numerous occasions, made official rulings at tournaments only to do an about-face in the FAQ.

We certainly have very strong indications of how the card is intended to operate. But until it's in black and white there is still doubt.

What we have now is as close to an FAQ as possible. Basically the word from the Armada gods.

Why does it matter if they change their mind on the FAQ? Are they not allowed to change their mind to make the card more balanced? Or should they be tied indefinitely to their initial decision?

I can't force you to play RLB how Mr. Gernes ruled it, but I'll be damned if I don't advise everyone else to follow what he has said. We have an unofficial ruling from FFG. I'd consider that better than the blind-leading-the-blind we have in this thread.

I can't force you to play RLB how Mr. Gernes ruled it, but I'll be damned if I don't advise everyone else to follow what he has said. We have an unofficial ruling from FFG. I'd consider that better than the blind-leading-the-blind we have in this thread.

You'll notice I'm not stopping you, either.

Just giving up the fight myself.

Absolutely in agreement with Undeadguy here.

We don't have a final, definitive, global ruling on this - but we do have the next best thing, and it cannot be ignored.

I'm glad the ruling went the way it did, I do think #teamorange makes more sense from a RAI point of view. But it's going to require a lot of clarification as this interpretation leaves some important points undefined.

I can't force you to play RLB how Mr. Gernes ruled it, but I'll be damned if I don't advise everyone else to follow what he has said. We have an unofficial ruling from FFG. I'd consider that better than the blind-leading-the-blind we have in this thread.

You'll notice I'm not stopping you, either.

Just giving up the fight myself.

NEVER GIVE UP! NEVER SURRENDER!