Just now, ovinomanc3r said:

You cannot place use all your value to place and then use all your value to activate others normally. Cause instead.

I think you can. You can place them, but that does not consume your squadron activations. I don't like the way they are using "would," because it seems to imply that the act of "placing a squadron" replaces the act of "activating a squadron." I thought that before the FAQ, but I no longer think that.

2 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

This is where I disagree. The phrase "as part of that command" reminds me that the RLB action takes place IN ADDITION TO the normal resolution of the command, and does not replace it.

Ok, but don't forget that the card says that instead of the normal activation (IE squadrons you would activate) you do this

1 minute ago, JgzMan said:

I think you can. You can place them, but that does not consume your squadron activations. I don't like the way they are using "would," because it seems to imply that the act of "placing a squadron" replaces the act of "activating a squadron ." I thought that before the FAQ, but I no longer think that.

Not sure about "would" but "instead" definitely does.

5 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

This is where I disagree. The phrase "as part of that command" reminds me that the RLB action takes place IN ADDITION TO the normal resolution of the command, and does not replace it.

Except, of course, you can't really marry that with the initial card concept of - "I nstead of Activating , you Place" as a paraphrase

Yea, OK, let me think out loud.

If we read the FAQ entry as a guide for how to carry out "you may instead place..." rather than a re-wording of how the card should work, I can see what you're saying. The problem is, I have trouble reading it that way. It reads as though they just re-wrote the entire second paragraph of the card.

So, when do we get the FAQ for the FAQ?

3 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

Yes, but they entirely failed to clarify the usage of "instead," which was pretty much the entire debate. The FAQ doesn't use the word at all, and it doesn't say anything else to indicate that the normal useage is eliminated.

What else does it need to say, though?

I mean, to put a right proper Strawman in the Room.... Its like saying - for example - that the FAQ does not clarify the usage of the word "Cannot". We know it, and we use it, but "Cannot" isn't defined, so I'm going to ignore the fact that "cannot" is in the golden rules...........

Because it seems to be that you're wanting to - again, strawmanning - :

Put down 4 B-Wings. Activating those 4 B-Wings for Free to Shoot, and then activating four More B-Wings at the same time with FC/FCT, because you have Squadron 4. Dumping a total of 8 B-Wing attacks into an unsuspecting enemy.

Because... Don't get me wrong. I'd Never Take Anything Else Ever Again.

We have the TeamOrange. The FAQ is not that.

We have the TeamPurple. The FAQ is not that.

We now have a TeamOranple A and a TeamOranple B.

TeamOranple A is place all that you intend to place up to your squadron command value for this command resolution, those squadrons are unactivated, you now resolve your squadron command as normal with the caveat that any just placed squads may not move if activated.

TeamOranple B is place all that you intend to place, anything after placement that shoots is considered activated and is counted as a spent activation you are entitled to for this resolution of the squadron command, if you have any activations remaining you may activated squadrons previously on the board as normal, placd squadrons that don't shoot are not considered activated. (This isn't a strict purple as under that you'd need four squadron activations to place and shoot with two squads in your RLB.)

Please note I strictly dealing with what to actual DO. I'm not trying to make a particular case just outline the interpretations the FAQ gives us.

You know, according to FFG's Rules on the forums, I actually own the concepts of Team Purple and Team Orange , and I would appreciate people not butchering them completely without providing at least some modicum of compensation

Just now, Drasnighta said:

Put down 4 B-Wings. Activating those 4 B-Wings for Free to Shoot, and then activating four More B-Wings at the same time with FC/FCT, because you have Squadron 4. Dumping a total of 8 B-Wing attacks into an unsuspecting enemy.

This isn't what I'm suggesting.

I'm suggesting that you can place 4 B-Wings, then activate 4 B-Wings. You can activate the ones you placed, or you can activate others. "They can be activated as part of the command" suggests that you are still performing the [squadron] command. It also makes "it cannot move this activation" fit the way I've always thought it should, as a reference to the ship activation.

2 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

We now have a TeamOranple A and a TeamOranple B.

This makes me weep, and I am sorely tempted to immediately capitulate, and erase any hint of what I have written today.

But yea, Oranple Alpha seems the way to go. (with respects to Drasnighta)

1 minute ago, JgzMan said:

This isn't what I'm suggesting.

I'm suggesting that you can place 4 B-Wings, then activate 4 B-Wings. You can activate the ones you placed, or you can activate others. "They can be activated as part of the command" suggests that you are still performing the [squadron] command. It also makes "it cannot move this activation" fit the way I've always thought it should, as a reference to the ship activation.

Dumping 4 Bs "For Free" and then still being able to activate 4 other things at the same time... Totally, Totally, TOTALLY worth it, and a near-second in the Awesomesauce department.

I really, really feel its asking far too much from a 6 point upgrade.

And I do reiterate that I feel the wording is, if not clear, at least heftily implied with the use of 'instead'.

I mean, I believe that "Instead" translates to "Do not do this thing, do this other thing."

Is there any other implied interpretation to the word "instead" that I'm unaware of? I mean, yes, this is a bit of a strawmanning here as well, but its a legitimate question.... "Replace" was ticky in the Sato ruling becauseof the timing, not because of the word Replace (did it happen before or after rolling)... So the same comparison isn't really there...

Given that I feel that there is only one potential application and translation of the word "Instead", then you simply cannot be expecting to dump those Squads for free and activate someone else with those points...

Its an Either/Or.

Or the Card would say In addition to rather than instead .

3 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

This makes me weep, and I am sorely tempted to immediately capitulate, and erase any hint of what I have written today.

But yea, Oranple Alpha seems the way to go. (with respects to Drasnighta)

I also think that my B version of TeamOranple has a few other possible sub-versions or caveats.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

Dumping 4 Bs "For Free" and then still being able to activate 4 other things at the same time... Totally, Totally, TOTALLY worth it, and a near-second in the Awesomesauce department.

I really, really feel its asking far too much from a 6 point upgrade.

Not sure I agree about the utility, but I'm wrong a lot.

More to the point, I won't accept an argument from consequences. They wrote the text, and I'm gonna assume that they are at least as smart as us. Although, they may not be as creatively stupid as I, and some others I've seen, are.

Same as the "zero dials" argument. Sure, it **** up the game, but it's what they wrote. I'm glad they made the obvious correction.

Just now, JgzMan said:

Not sure I agree about the utility, but I'm wrong a lot.

More to the point, I won't accept an argument from consequences. They wrote the text, and I'm gonna assume that they are at least as smart as us. Although, they may not be as creatively stupid as I, and some others I've seen, are.

Same as the "zero dials" argument. Sure, it **** up the game, but it's what they wrote. I'm glad they made the obvious correction.

I added a bunch more too - I'm actually really curious if there is a second potential translation for the word "instead" (Since I'm no wordsmith, I speak English and Bad English.)

I think the real questions are boiling down to this:

When the squadrons are "placed" are they considered "activated?"
I think the answer to this is no.

Does the act of "placing" a squadron count against the number of Squadrons you can activate with this Squadron command?
I think the answer to this is yes.

Does "placing" and then subsequently "activating" that squadron count as two of your squadron activations?
I think the answer to this is no.

Can you activate other squadrons beyond the ones "placed" (ie. Launched from the ship in question)?
I think the answer to this is yes, but I can be swayed to no on this one.

Comments?

11 minutes ago, Fraggle_Rock said:

I think the real questions are boiling down to this:

When the squadrons are "placed" are they considered "activated?"
I think the answer to this is no.

Does the act of "placing" a squadron count against the number of Squadrons you can activate with this Squadron command?
I think the answer to this is yes.

Does "placing" and then subsequently "activating" that squadron count as two of your squadron activations?
I think the answer to this is no.

Can you activate other squadrons beyond the ones "placed" (ie. Launched from the ship in question)?
I think the answer to this is yes, but I can be swayed to no on this one.

Comments?

Funny thing is, I am getting yelled at by people for being pedantic for even considering this whole problem.

I think FFG should say 'sorry about the mess'.

20 minutes ago, Fraggle_Rock said:

I think the real questions are boiling down to this:

When the squadrons are "placed" are they considered "activated?"
I think the answer to this is no.

Does the act of "placing" a squadron count against the number of Squadrons you can activate with this Squadron command?
I think the answer to this is yes.

Does "placing" and then subsequently "activating" that squadron count as two of your squadron activations?
I think the answer to this is no.

Can you activate other squadrons beyond the ones "placed" (ie. Launched from the ship in question)?
I think the answer to this is yes, but I can be swayed to no on this one.

Comments?

This is what I outline as the TeamOranple B version created by the FAQ. I would accept this as a way to resolve the thing.

I think the FAQ also opens up the idea of TeamOranple A which is the same as you outline except the answer to your "Does the act of "placing" a squadron count against the number of Squadrons you can activate with this Squadron command?"becomes "If you shoot with it."

15 minutes ago, Fraggle_Rock said:

I think the real questions are boiling down to this:

When the squadrons are "placed" are they considered "activated?"
I think the answer to this is no.

Does the act of "placing" a squadron count against the number of Squadrons you can activate with this Squadron command?
I think the answer to this is yes.

Does "placing" and then subsequently "activating" that squadron count as two of your squadron activations?
I think the answer to this is no.

Can you activate other squadrons beyond the ones "placed" (ie. Launched from the ship in question)?
I think the answer to this is yes, but I can be swayed to no on this one.

Comments?

I agree with all except the last one. The "instead" word on the card make me think that either you do RLB (place and activate or not activate) or normal activation, but not do both

21 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Is there any other implied interpretation to the word "instead" that I'm unaware of? I mean, yes, this is a bit of a strawmanning here as well, but its a legitimate question.... "Replace" was ticky in the Sato ruling becauseof the timing, not because of the word Replace (did it happen before or after rolling)... So the same comparison isn't really there...

Given that I feel that there is only one potential application and translation of the word "Instead", then you simply cannot be expecting to dump those Squads for free and activate someone else with those points...

For this, I refer you to my commentary above. If I'm reading the FAQ entry as "This is how you perform each instance of placing a fighter," then I agree with your interpretation; the FAQ instructions are "under" the word "instead." But I'm reading it more as simply striking the entire second paragraph, and replacing it.

"When a ship with this card equipped resolves a [squadron] command, it can place its set-aside squadrons up to the number it would activate during that [squadron] command" seems to be a re-wording of "[squadron]: For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set-aside squadrons within distance 1." - It doesn't repeat the range restriction, so it's not a complete remove-and-replace, unless they were just unthinkably clumsy about it. I'd prefer to think that they were not. Critically, though, it also does not repeat the word "instead," nor does it do anything to address it. "Would," IMO, is not a clarification. This would have been a great place to include something like "Instead of activating a squadron, place a squadron. You may place the squadron as either activated, or unactivated."

Then the FAQ says "After the squadrons are placed, they can be activated (one at a time) as part of that [squadron] command, but cannot move." Which seems to be a rewording of "It cannot move this activation."

5 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

I agree with all except the last one. The "instead" word on the card make me think that either you do RLB (place and activate or not activate) or normal activation, but not do both

I think, even under the Bravo interpretation, that it would permit you to, with a squadron value of 3, place 2 squadrons, activate them, and then activate a third squadron as normal. If the FAQ is filed under "instead," then it is also filed under "for each," which say to me that the three squadron activations can be considered separately as a "place" or an "activate."

I think people are just forgetting the exact wording on this.

The card (not replaced - it was in the 'clarification' section of the FAQ not the errata section) and relevant text:

The things people are missing, here are:

• It's an 'instead of', meaning it uses up one of your activations, but is not itself an activation (per se)
• The FAQ text very clearly states that you get an optional activation of each of these squadrons (without movement) AS PART OF the same action

So the upgrade card is just adding another use for squadron command. You end up with a choice, as to how to use your squadron points, of either:

• Activate that number of squadrons on the table, as normal, moving or shooting in any order you want
• Or you can place that number of squadrons from your ship card and optionally activate them, without movement in that activation

23 minutes ago, xanderf said:

So the upgrade card is just adding another use for squadron command. You end up with a choice, as to how to use your squadron points, of either:

• Activate that number of squadrons on the table, as normal, moving or shooting in any order you want
• Or you can place that number of squadrons from your ship card and optionally activate them, without movement in that activation

This is certainly how I prefer to read it.

I can see how there are other interpretations that also work. But the above seems both valid and feels thematic. When you're using your Rapid Launch Bays you are launching from the bays. So the squadron command is entirely about the squadrons launching from the bay.

26 minutes ago, xanderf said:

I think people are just forgetting the exact wording on this.

The card (not replaced - it was in the 'clarification' section of the FAQ not the errata section) and relevant text:

The things people are missing, here are:

• It's an 'instead of', meaning it uses up one of your activations, but is not itself an activation (per se)
• The FAQ text very clearly states that you get an optional activation of each of these squadrons (without movement) AS PART OF the same action

So the upgrade card is just adding another use for squadron command. You end up with a choice, as to how to use your squadron points, of either:

• Activate that number of squadrons on the table, as normal, moving or shooting in any order you want
• Or you can place that number of squadrons from your ship card and optionally activate them, without movement in that activation

Finally something that makes sense.

Applause.

29 minutes ago, xanderf said:

it was in the 'clarification' section of the FAQ not the errata section

This is a telling point.

So we got the FAQ to clear the eternal question, and we have again 20 pages about RLB?

What does it tell us? Maybe the ruling was not this smart after all.
It seems we need a FAQ for the FAQ

51 minutes ago, xanderf said:

I think people are just forgetting the exact wording on this.

The card (not replaced - it was in the 'clarification' section of the FAQ not the errata section) and relevant text:

The things people are missing, here are:

• It's an 'instead of', meaning it uses up one of your activations, but is not itself an activation (per se)
• The FAQ text very clearly states that you get an optional activation of each of these squadrons (without movement) AS PART OF the same action

So the upgrade card is just adding another use for squadron command. You end up with a choice, as to how to use your squadron points, of either:

• Activate that number of squadrons on the table, as normal, moving or shooting in any order you want
• Or you can place that number of squadrons from your ship card and optionally activate them, without movement in that activation

Yeah, this is pretty much what I'm thinking as well now. Thank you @xanderf for putting it in a nice neat package.