I'm perfectly okay with your Pseudocode interpretation.

How to sell it to the unwashed masses, however...

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.

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

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 you have squadron 4:

You can set aside 4 squads.

Then, instead of activating "normally" you could drop all of those 4 squads from your Bays.

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).

hah yeah, sorry boys. I think this card is very difficult to interpret. It has my vote for worst written card in Armada

My stance right now is squadrons placed are un-activated and do not attack. But man, this thing can be argued in circles.

I disagree.

It is very easy to interpret.

And you are entirely wrong in your interpretation.

I also read it the way Greenie did. But again, I'm sick as a dog and haven't eaten in now going over 30 hours so unlike certain celestial murder machines I am not entirely operational. Does seem like its begging for a FAQ.

hah yeah, sorry boys. I think this card is very difficult to interpret. It has my vote for worst written card in Armada

My stance right now is squadrons placed are un-activated and do not attack. But man, this thing can be argued in circles.

I disagree.

It is very easy to interpret.

And you are entirely wrong in your interpretation.

I think there just isn't room for "activate and" before the "place one of your set aside squadrons." They're figuring the use of "activation" in the last sentence provides the proper implication.

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.

I second Diablo's interpretation as the only plausible one. If the placed squadrons are activated, barring Mr. Tallon, how are we arriving at this discussion about activating them again? Once you (the squadron) are activated, you're done. You've shot, or moved, or both if commanded or Rogue. Further question, is the number of squadrons that can be set aside adjusted by Expanded Hangar Bays (edge case for I-1s)?

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.

I second Diablo's interpretation as the only plausible one. If the placed squadrons are activated, barring Mr. Tallon, how are we arriving at this discussion about activating them again? Once you (the squadron) are activated, you're done. You've shot, or moved, or both if commanded or Rogue. Further question, is the number of squadrons that can be set aside adjusted by Expanded Hangar Bays (edge case for I-1s)?

If it says Squadron Value, then yes. Because Hangar Bays change your Squadron value.

It's obvious the only clear part of this card is that it's not possible to interpret the intention of the card.

Has someone submitted a question to FFG for this? It really is the only way we'll find out how it's suppose to be used.

So just for the sake of pontificating (I agree- I doubt we can come to consensus without FFG's guidance here!)

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

[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.

This is how I read it as well.

I disagree with GK.

I think he is wrong in his interpretation.

great...an impasse...

------------------
******* piece of **** rules laywer si all you are
------------------

Lovely . It has begun.

------------------

******* piece of **** rules laywer si all you are

------------------

Lovely . It has begun.

Who bothers with nasty PMs over a plastic miniatures game rules forum? It seems the definition of pointless and/or worthless.

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.

------------------

******* piece of **** rules laywer si all you are

------------------

Lovely . It has begun.

Post a name so we can go after them like an angry mob.

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. It [A squadron activated in this manner] cannot move [as part of] this activation."

That's an interesting read.

But "Instead" usually means "Don't do that, do this."

------------------

******* piece of **** rules laywer si all you are

------------------

Lovely . It has begun.

In the forums I participate in elsewhere, civility is enforced by the Banhammer. Is there any mod work that can be done to address this issue here, or is this not something that will draw mod attention?

Either way, this is not ok.

by mentioning that it cannot move during this activation..infers that firing would be an option...(since there is nothing else a sqn can do in this instance) which the only way for a sqn to fire during the ship activation is to be activated...so I am reading it as you drop the sqns up to your value ( they are considered activated but can only shoot this turn) FCT from this ship would not be a factor as it is part of the ships activation....however other ships with FCT nearby would affect it since this is all after the activation.

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.

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

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.

But it does:

" 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 ."

That's an interesting read.

But "Instead" usually means "Don't do that, do this."

For sure, but I think in this context the instead is replacing what you would normally do with a squadron activation, but not actually replacing the fact that an activation is occurring itself.

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.

For sure, but I think in this context the instead is replacing what you would normally do with a squadron activation, but not actually replacing the fact that an activation is occurring itself.

And I don't necessarily disagree ... Only point out that such an interpretation is just that - an interpretation - and relies on context that is not readily defined by the card itself.

The very fact we're having a discussion shows that