RLB squads are set aside, and not part of deployment. So Fighter Ambush doesn't affect them.

14 hours ago, xerpo said:

It seems like you're trying your best to make it happen and **** that rebel scum xD. The moment it activates its "inside the ship" = outside the table, unless specified otherwise the activation is happening outside the table, and there is nothing in the rules forbidding this. So, im so sorry to be the one bringing the bad news

From where you take that the squadrons are activated "inside the ship"?

You can't activate squadron out of the table. RRG doesn't allow you that. RLB doesn't say it. All we know is that the squadrons placed this way are activated but as long as I understand from the clarification given to us we don't know if they are activated then placed, placed then activated or place activated.

We still waiting for more clarification about this upgrade so I will let this thread as it is right now. The pages we wrote won't matter until ffg illuminate us.

14 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

From where you take that the squadrons are activated "inside the ship"?

You can't activate squadron out of the table. RRG doesn't allow you that. RLB doesn't say it. All we know is that the squadrons placed this way are activated but as long as I understand from the clarification given to us we don't know if they are activated then placed, placed then activated or place activated.

We still waiting for more clarification about this upgrade so I will let this thread as it is right now. The pages we wrote won't matter until ffg illuminate us.

The act of placing is part of the activation.

Normally a squadron command activation was either move & shoot or shoot & move. With RLB since you can't shoot and "place" but you can "place" and shoot. The "place" replaces the movement part of the activation.

2 hours ago, Vetnor said:

The act of placing is part of the activation.

Normally a squadron command activation was either move & shoot or shoot & move. With RLB since you can't shoot and "place" but you can "place" and shoot. The "place" replaces the movement part of the activation.

Couldn't say it better.

How does that account for: "For each you would activate, instead..... " Meaning there is no activation ?

Which was one of the core arguments.

3 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

How does that account for: "For each you would activate, instead..... " Meaning there is no activation ?

Which was one of the core arguments.

Dunno, depends on how analytical your brain is and in depth you need to go into things. For me, the team orange view was always the easiest and most logical interpretation.

It is the easiest, for sure.

But it relies on logical leaps to do anything else not indicated directly on the card.

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

How does that account for: "For each you would activate, instead..... " Meaning there is no activation ?

Which was one of the core arguments.

Means instead of activating a squadron already in play. ie the placed squads count against your squadron activation limit.

Example: AF MkII B can activate 3 squads. Instead of activating a squad already on the board you can place one of your 'carried' squads. Thus if you are carrying, say two B-wings, you would be able to activate 3 squadrons; instead of activating say, two A-wings, already in play you place your two B-wings. These B-wings may shoot but (as per the card) cannot move this activation. With your remaining squadron activation you can activate another squad in play, one of the A-wings say.

It's to stop you placing yur carried squads and then activating more squads up to your activation limit.

The 'instead' refers to the squad not the activation. So when you would activate a squad already in play you may instead place one of your carried squads; it counts towards your activation limit and can fire but not move this activation.

17 minutes ago, Kendraam said:

Means instead of activating a squadron already in play. ie the placed squads count against your squadron activation limit.

Example: AF MkII B can activate 3 squads. Instead of activating a squad already on the board you can place one of your 'carried' squads. Thus if you are carrying, say two B-wings, you would be able to activate 3 squadrons; instead of activating say, two A-wings, already in play you place your two B-wings. These B-wings may shoot but (as per the card) cannot move this activation. With your remaining squadron activation you can activate another squad in play, one of the A-wings say.

It's to stop you placing yur carried squads and then activating more squads up to your activation limit.

The 'instead' refers to the squad not the activation. So when you would activate a squad already in play you may instead place one of your carried squads; it counts towards your activation limit and can fire but not move this activation.

The problem is those logical leaps as I stated, and why I bloody well had to break down to Team Purple and Team Orange to work things out in the first place .

1) The card does not say you activate the Squad.
2) The card does not say you can shoot. Merely states you cannot move.

Simply put, as far as I am concerned:

We're waiting for an FAQ.

And a Rant to No-one in Particular. Just a Rant. Skip and Ignore if you wish, I couldn't actually work out a Spoiler Code:

I am not smarter than anyone else. I consider myself fairly average in intelligence, really... But when I broke it down, and looked at every aspect without bias and without "wanting" it to work a certain way... I found that both interpretations were legitimate, worked for certain aspects (but not all) on both sides of the argument, and basically, the cards actual working relies purely on the intent , which we as players may argue, but may never define ... because we are not the designers.

Maybe I'm an arrogant bastard by thinking it this way - but, personally, I find it insulting when someone pops up and says "THIS IS EASY", or "THIS IS CLEARLY THE RIGHT WAY." Because its not. If it were clear, we would not be on page 17. It would have been done and dusted.

So by all means, have an opinion on which way you think it is... But unless you're Michael Gernes, your opinion is just an opinion - it is not fact. I wish it were. I wish I could definitively agree, and kowtow, and say to some people "OMGZ YOU ARE THE SMARTS, MUCH SMRTRZ THAN ME!" and attribute it, and walk away form the argument. I've tried walking away. But after writing what I thought was a good breakdown, and have someone turn around and say my time was wasted because there was a clear, simply answer all along.

But Hey, this is the Internet ... I should be used to it by now, right? Its not worth your, or my, time, because its the Internet .

So be it, I guess.

I eagerly await Michael Gernes' FAQ on this and many other subjects.

(Which hopefully also finally answer my Hyperspace Assault question from the Massing at Sullust..... That gets re-asked every 3-5 months or so....)

5 hours ago, Vetnor said:

The act of placing is part of the activation.

Normally a squadron command activation was either move & shoot or shoot & move. With RLB since you can't shoot and "place" but you can "place" and shoot. The "place" replaces the movement part of the activation.

This is what YOU intend. Not what the card says and not what Michael Gernes said (or at least no what Silver Crane said he said here: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/237054-rapid-launch-bays-can-fighters-placed-in-this-way-attack/?do=findComment&comment=2580072 )

I understand your logic. I only think that to say that you place the squadrons by RLB, activate and shoot but not move as RLB already says is as logical as what you said. If it would be this way Boba could work and I think it is an important clarification about we don't have an answer yet. Mithel doesn't give problems as his skill trigger when he moves and he is not moving and placing is not a movement.

15 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

The problem is those logical leaps as I stated, and why I bloody well had to break down to Team Purple and Team Orange to work things out in the first place .

1) The card does not say you activate the Squad.
2) The card does not say you can shoot. Merely states you cannot move.

Simply put, as far as I am concerned:

We're waiting for an FAQ.

And a Rant to No-one in Particular. Just a Rant. Skip and Ignore if you wish, I couldn't actually work out a Spoiler Code:

I am not smarter than anyone else. I consider myself fairly average in intelligence, really... But when I broke it down, and looked at every aspect without bias and without "wanting" it to work a certain way... I found that both interpretations were legitimate, worked for certain aspects (but not all) on both sides of the argument, and basically, the cards actual working relies purely on the intent , which we as players may argue, but may never define ... because we are not the designers.

Maybe I'm an arrogant bastard by thinking it this way - but, personally, I find it insulting when someone pops up and says "THIS IS EASY", or "THIS IS CLEARLY THE RIGHT WAY." Because its not. If it were clear, we would not be on page 17. It would have been done and dusted.

So by all means, have an opinion on which way you think it is... But unless you're Michael Gernes, your opinion is just an opinion - it is not fact. I wish it were. I wish I could definitively agree, and kowtow, and say to some people "OMGZ YOU ARE THE SMARTS, MUCH SMRTRZ THAN ME!" and attribute it, and walk away form the argument. I've tried walking away. But after writing what I thought was a good breakdown, and have someone turn around and say my time was wasted because there was a clear, simply answer all along.

But Hey, this is the Internet ... I should be used to it by now, right? Its not worth your, or my, time, because its the Internet .

So be it, I guess.

I eagerly await Michael Gernes' FAQ on this and many other subjects.

(Which hopefully also finally answer my Hyperspace Assault question from the Massing at Sullust..... That gets re-asked every 3-5 months or so....)

If you put together the core base rules and the card wording the logical answer shows itself, the discussion over this card as I said before is based on childish attempts to make ir work the way each individual wants be fitting for his/her fleet. Sadly this is why we need FAQ's.

31 minutes ago, xerpo said:

If you put together the core base rules and the card wording the logical answer shows itself, the discussion over this card as I said before is based on childish attempts to make ir work the way each individual wants be fitting for his/her fleet. Sadly this is why we need FAQ's.

Oh yeah everybody want this card work as they want but you right?

We don't need the FAQ cause people read what they want. We need a FAQ because the card doesn't say a ****. It has a confusing wording and it is poorly written. We need a FAQ because even when we get an answer from Micheal Gernes this answer let a lot of unclarified questions.

Until more Michael Gernes clarifications or a FAQ the best we can do with this upgrade is find an agreement with your opponent before playing and if you can't, keep it at home.

28 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Oh yeah everybody want this card work as they want but you right?

We don't need the FAQ cause people read what they want. We need a FAQ because the card doesn't say a ****. It has a confusing wording and it is poorly written. We need a FAQ because even when we get an answer from Micheal Gernes this answer let a lot of unclarified questions.

Until more Michael Gernes clarifications or a FAQ the best we can do with this upgrade is find an agreement with your opponent before playing and if you can't, keep it at home.

My opinion is the same as the orange team, wich is likely everyone with a minium of common sense in their heads and mostly everyone in this forum but the 3 usuals that want to make it work their way.

2 minutes ago, xerpo said:

My opinion is the same as the orange team, wich is likely everyone with a minium of common sense in their heads and mostly everyone in this forum but the 3 usuals that want to make it work their way.

Actually those three usuals never said a word about how they would like this upgrades work I think. In fact I always prefered orange but I liked purple as it solved almost all problems about this card. But feel free to intend what everybody around you intend.

39 minutes ago, xerpo said:

My opinion is the same as the orange team, wich is likely everyone with a minium of common sense in their heads and mostly everyone in this forum but the 3 usuals that want to make it work their way.

We already know how FFG (or at least Mr. Gernes) intends for the card to be read. That's no longer a point of contention.

However, the intended interpretation results in a number of unresolved questions, for example:

• Is the squadron activated when placed, or before placing it?
• If the ship is destroyed, are the squadrons destroyed?

More generally, which of the rules for "set aside" squadrons (from the FAQ entry on Hyperspace Assault) are in effect? Under #teamorange , the rule governing activation sliders is ignored. Are there any others? In fact, do these rules apply at all?

Of course, we can always [guess|extrapolate|infer|conjecture|invent|agree on|read between the lines] what the answers should be - and get them right most of the time. But the fact of the matter remains that the rules simply don't provide these answers yet , which generates doubts and recurring questions.

Regarding the original argument, the core issue is/was that

• #teamorange is a more "natural" reading and follows from "common sense" (but brings up a lot of follow-up questions), whereas
• #teampurple is internally consistent with existing rules (but requires some mental gymnastics),

and the wording of the card could be construed as meaning either - or even contradicting both.

I don't think anybody has suggested they want the card to be read in any particular way. And it's a bit insulting to have one's attempts at helping others better understand the rules and underlying logic of the game be dismissed as "childish" or "without a minimum of common sense in the head". Dras has done, and continues to do, a tremendous job for the community in this matter and does not deserve such derision. I would ask of you that you treat him, and everyone else for that matter (I'm curious who you think the other "usuals" are), with a modicum of respect.

Anyhow, like others have said before, at this point any further rules debate is sterile, and we're just waiting for a FAQ.

2 hours ago, xerpo said:

If you put together the core base rules and the card wording the logical answer shows itself, the discussion over this card as I said before is based on childish attempts to make ir work the way each individual wants be fitting for his/her fleet. Sadly this is why we need FAQ's.

Ohh great. You have the answer.

Quote the core base rules that show how this card is working and correctly ruled.

Show us what everyone was missing.

There are 17 pages for a reason. This card does contradict itself with the rules.
And every way to fix it only lead to new questions right now until there is a clear FAQ with an Errata of the card (it will get one, a clarification is not enough to fix it).

There is no right or wrong way to play it. because no matter how you play it, it is right and wrong at the same time (strict by the rules).

This is no way (at least from the most who post here) a childish attempt to make the card work the way they want to. Most do see and understand the problem. And some even understand why it is a problem.

47 minutes ago, xerpo said:

My opinion is the same as the orange team, wich is likely everyone with a minium of common sense in their heads and mostly everyone in this forum but the 3 usuals that want to make it work their way.

You did notice, that you really start to insult some people right now?
Just dont start to Trump around.

I posted my opinion on how i think the card might work and how i see the current ruling on the card. But in NO WAY i ever said that i want to make it work this way.
And just because it is a different way i see how it should work by the rules right now ( not the way I THINK it should work! ) it does not mean that i am blind to the problems and the reasons others have.

Currently the card is (like i wrote above) broken (by the rules) and just a paradox.

@DiabloAzul

You have an activation sequence, the only thing that has changed is, instead of activating squadrons already on the board, you launch them from the ship with RLB, and as such it follows ALL standard activations rules, apart from they have the move part replaced with placement at distance 1 of the ship launching them, and just like normal activation sequence, you do them one at a time.

The Squadrons do not exist until they are placed on the game board, if the ship they are on gets destroyed then they are also lost, just like if you choose to Hyperspace your admiral in, He/She has no effect until the ship they are on is placed on the game board, and if you get destroyed before you Hyperspace in that ship and Squadrons, they all count as destroyed as per the game rules.

3 minutes ago, Tokra said:

Ohh great. You have the answer.

Quote the core base rules that show how this card is working and correctly ruled.

Show us what everyone was missing.

There are 17 pages for a reason. This card does contradict itself with the rules.
And every way to fix it only lead to new questions right now until there is a clear FAQ with an Errata of the card (it will get one, a clarification is not enough to fix it).

There is no right or wrong way to play it. because no matter how you play it, it is right and wrong at the same time (strict by the rules).

This is no way (at least from the most who post here) a childish attempt to make the card work the way they want to. Most do see and understand the problem. And some even understand why it is a problem.

You did notice, that you really start to insult some people right now?
Just dont start to Trump around.

I posted my opinion on how i think the card might work and how i see the current ruling on the card. But in NO WAY i ever said that i want to make it work this way.
And just because it is a different way i see how it should work by the rules right now ( not the way I THINK it should work! ) it does not mean that i am blind to the problems and the reasons others have.

Currently the card is (like i wrote above) broken (by the rules) and just a paradox.

No it does not contradict anything.

It gives a new option for squadron activation, and it is very very straight forwards.

1 minute ago, TheEasternKing said:

@DiabloAzul

You have an activation sequence, the only thing that has changed is, instead of activating squadrons already on the board, you launch them from the ship with RLB, and as such it follows ALL standard activations rules, apart from they have the move part replaced with placement at distance 1 of the ship launching them, and just like normal activation sequence, you do them one at a time.

The Squadrons do not exist until they are placed on the game board, if the ship they are on gets destroyed then they are also lost, just like if you choose to Hyperspace your admiral in, He/She has no effect until the ship they are on is placed on the game board, and if you get destroyed before you Hyperspace in that ship and Squadrons, they all count as destroyed as per the game rules.

That's my guess , too.

2 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

That's my guess , too.

We have rules for things not on the game board, if you lose your ships on the game board, and have not placed them, they count as lost. FFG also clarified they have no impact on the game board until they are placed. All game rules are ignored for ships/squadrons in Hyperspace, (not on the game board.) No dials are set etc etc, they are not part of activations or anything else.

Everything on a ship dies when it dies, you do not get to keep your Admiral if his ship is killed, (s)he dies with it, you lose all your upgrades on that ship.

Do we have any rules that state when a Ship is destroyed, you do not remove all its upgrade cards and components from the play area?

I'd say it is more than a guess, that squadrons not launched are destroyed along with the vessel that is carrying them. Until FFG do a 180 ala X-17 TL and Advanced Projectors.

46 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

We have rules for things not on the game board, if you lose your ships on the game board, and have not placed them, they count as lost. FFG also clarified they have no impact on the game board until they are placed. All game rules are ignored for ships/squadrons in Hyperspace, (not on the game board.) No dials are set etc etc, they are not part of activations or anything else.

Everything on a ship dies when it dies, you do not get to keep your Admiral if his ship is killed, (s)he dies with it, you lose all your upgrades on that ship.

Do we have any rules that state when a Ship is destroyed, you do not remove all its upgrade cards and components from the play area?

I'd say it is more than a guess, that squadrons not launched are destroyed along with the vessel that is carrying them. Until FFG do a 180 ala X-17 TL and Advanced Projectors.

We do indeed have a section on how to deal with squadrons that are set aside and off the play area.

The problem is, that rules section explicitly says that those squadrons are placed onto the play area unactivated .

EDIT: This contradiction casts doubt on the assumption that these rules apply generally to all set aside squadrons, and not just to Hyperspace Assault. Or at least, it begs the question of whether any other rules in that section should also be ignored.

1 minute ago, TheEasternKing said:

No it does not contradict anything.

It gives a new option for squadron activation, and it is very very straight forwards.

I mean the card right now. The way it is written.

"Instead of activate" and "this activation".

And because the card (as it is written) never say anything about activating the squadrons, there was no reason to say where they are activated.

31 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

The Squadrons do not exist until they are placed on the game board, if the ship they are on gets destroyed then they are also lost, just like if you choose to Hyperspace your admiral in, He/She has no effect until the ship they are on is placed on the game board, and if you get destroyed before you Hyperspace in that ship and Squadrons, they all count as destroyed as per the game rules.

This is the FAQ of hyperspace assault not an actual rule about being set aside unless I miss something. In fact with the orange solution the differences between RLB and hyperspace assault increased.

Of course I am not saying there is a lack of common sense on this

59 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

We already know how FFG (or at least Mr. Gernes) intends for the card to be read. That's no longer a point of contention.

However, the intended interpretation results in a number of unresolved questions, for example:

• Is the squadron activated when placed, or before placing it?
• If the ship is destroyed, are the squadrons destroyed?

More generally, which of the rules for "set aside" squadrons (from the FAQ entry on Hyperspace Assault) are in effect? Under #teamorange , the rule governing activation sliders is ignored. Are there any others? In fact, do these rules apply at all?

Of course, we can always [guess|extrapolate|infer|conjecture|invent|agree on|read between the lines] what the answers should be - and get them right most of the time. But the fact of the matter remains that the rules simply don't provide these answers yet , which generates doubts and recurring questions.

Regarding the original argument, the core issue is/was that

• #teamorange is a more "natural" reading and follows from "common sense" (but brings up a lot of follow-up questions), whereas
• #teampurple is internally consistent with existing rules (but requires some mental gymnastics),

and the wording of the card could be construed as meaning either - or even contradicting both.

I don't think anybody has suggested they want the card to be read in any particular way. And it's a bit insulting to have one's attempts at helping others better understand the rules and underlying logic of the game be dismissed as "childish" or "without a minimum of common sense in the head". Dras has done, and continues to do, a tremendous job for the community in this matter and does not deserve such derision. I would ask of you that you treat him, and everyone else for that matter (I'm curious who you think the other "usuals" are), with a modicum of respect.

Anyhow, like others have said before, at this point any further rules debate is sterile, and we're just waiting for a FAQ.

With respect to the activation of the squad:

Where in the rules is there anything permitting you to activate squadrons that are not on the board?

22 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

With respect to the activation of the squad:

Where in the rules is there anything permitting you to activate squadrons that are not on the board?

Nowhere. And that is a problem.

There are no rules precedents for anything RLB does - with the exception of setting squadrons aside, but (as pointed out before) even those are contradicted by #teamorange * .

The card instructs you to place a set aside squadron instead of activating. Neither to "place a squadron as part of its activation, replacing its movement", nor to "place a squadron and activate it". As a corollary, we don't know whether Boba Fett's ability triggers before or after placement.

(*: By comparison, under #teampurple , squadrons are governed strictly by the "set aside" rules for Hyperspace Assault until they are placed. After that, they are governed strictly by normal rules, with the only caveat that they cannot move until the end of the ship's activation. It may be a non-intuitive reading of "this activation", but at least it doesn't break anything.)