Just now, Tokra said:

120 days for a FAQ. The discussion is still going on, and the arguments are the same as we had at the beginning.

This is what i call a fail FAQ ruling

what we needed is an example of the effect (hell, several examples to cover all the basis)

I just wondered right from the start why instead of ending the card with saying "they cannot move this activation", they simply could have stated, "...you may instead place 1 of the set aside squadrons at range 1, which counts as it's movement this activation ."

1 hour ago, AegisGrimm said:

I just wondered right from the start why instead of ending the card with saying "they cannot move this activation", they simply could have stated, "...you may instead place 1 of the set aside squadrons at range 1, which counts as it's movement this activation ."

Because the squad isnt activated upon placement, a second squad allocation is required to activate the squad, and if it does the squad cannot move.

1 hour ago, AegisGrimm said:

I just wondered right from the start why instead of ending the card with saying "they cannot move this activation", they simply could have stated, "...you may instead place 1 of the set aside squadrons at range 1, which counts as it's movement this activation ."

Imagine driving a Raider with Flight Commander and RLB driving near a squadron ball and dropping Mauler Mithel into the pack, that counting as it's move for the turn.

Whoops everything take 1 damage.

1 hour ago, Sybreed said:

that precise sentence is what people have been arguing since yesterday. The FAQ has done nothing really to help us in that regard. One group thinks placing the squads deplete your squadron value, the other group thinks it's the opposite.

Being the unruly child that @DUR loves to hate. I like to call these two sides

Team Rules

And

Team Interpretation

36 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Imagine driving a Raider with Flight Commander and RLB driving near a squadron ball and dropping Mauler Mithel into the pack, that counting as it's move for the turn.

Whoops everything take 1 damage.

Yeah, bad wording for that kind of thing, I see. Probably would have to be more of a "instead place a set aside squadron at Range 1, replacing its movement for this activation."

Just not sure of the need for each squadron placed to need an additional activation to attack, when the card itself already needs a token, therefore dropping the activation for that ship by one for that turn.

32 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Being the unruly child that @DUR loves to hate. I like to call these two sides

Team Rules

And

Team Interpretation

Some rules have to be interpreted because not all rules are clearly written.

That's what judges are for.

Source: I am attorney.

23 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Some rules have to be interpreted because not all rules are clearly written.

That's what judges are for.

Source: I am attorney.

exactly, and that's why we'll get a clear ruling during worlds' when someone will use the card and try to place 4 squadrons and activate these 4. A judge will declare if the move is correct or not

4 minutes ago, Sybreed said:

exactly, and that's why we'll get a clear ruling during worlds' when someone will use the card and try to place 4 squadrons and activate these 4. A judge will declear if the move is correct or not

Indeed. Also, here is the breakdown I just did for your convenience, to illustrate what I strongly believe is the correct interpretation:

I'll try and break it down for all to see one more time then.

RLB text.

"Before deploying fleets, you may set aside a number of friendly squadrons up to your squadron value next to your ship 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."

"For each squadron you would activate..."

When you use a squadron command with RLB, you're not activating the squadrons, your placing them.

"[P]lace 1 of your set aside squadrons... it cannot move this activation."

It is singular. Similarly, the number 1 is singular. Thus, it refers to the squadron(s) you place.

The only restriction on the squadron is that it cannot move, but the card does not expressly preclude the squadron from attacking.

Typically when a squadron command is used, you can move and attack with a squadron. Thus, the squadron is placed and activated, but is only allowed to attack.

FAQ

When a ship with this card equipped resolves a command , it can place its set-aside squadrons up to the number it would activate during that command. After the squadrons are placed, they can be activated (one at a time) as part of that command, but cannot move.

We have already established that a squadron(s) is being activated via RLB.

Think of the placement of the squadron within distance 1 as being a substitute for the squadron's movement.

All the FAQ does is require you to place all the squadrons before activating them one at at time, which essentially allows you do both benefit from Mith's effect via placement, and Boba's through activation once he is placed on the board.

There is literally nothing in the language of the card and the FAQ that supports the notion that you have to use 1 point of your squadron value to deploy the squadron, and another point of your squadron value to activate the card.

Both the card and the FAQ make clear that you are activating the squadrons you are deploying from the same squadron command.

1 hour ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

It is singular. Similarly, the number 1 is singular. Thus, it refers to the squadron(s) you place.

Exactly, it not they. It refers to the singular, the singular ship activation.

Source: You're an attorney

16 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Exactly, it not they. It refers to the singular, the singular ship activation.

Source: You're an attorney

Sure, it applies to a ship activation, but only if you completely ignore the preceding sentence. I.e. ignore context.

Also, serious question: Is English your first language? I only ask because you seem to be having difficulty with deciphering pronouns.

1 hour ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Indeed. Also, here is the breakdown I just did for your convenience, to illustrate what I strongly believe is the correct interpretation:

I'll try and break it down for all to see one more time then.

RLB text.

"Before deploying fleets, you may set aside a number of friendly squadrons up to your squadron value next to your ship 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."

"For each squadron you would activate..."

When you use a squadron command with RLB, you're not activating the squadrons, your placing them.

[...]

We have already established that a squadron(s) is being activated via RLB.

You're contradicting yourself right here.

RLB doesn't establish that you activate squadrons, it only establishes that you can place the set-aside squadrons INSTEAD of activating squadrons

The FAQ then tells you that you CAN activate them. Meaning the activation is not guaranteed unless you spend activation points.

1 minute ago, Sybreed said:

You're contradicting yourself right here.

RLB doesn't establish that you activate squadrons, it only establishes that you can place the set-aside squadrons INSTEAD.

The FAQ then tells you that you CAN activate them. Meaning the activation is not guaranteed unless you spend activation points.

Right.

So then to clarify: RLB places the squadrons, and you are activating the squadrons via your dial or token.

3 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Right.

So then to clarify: RLB places the squadrons, and you are activating the squadrons via your dial or token.

Maybe.

You know, the only way the wording would have been clear is if they wrote: For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead ACTIVATE one of your set-aside squadrons by PLACING them within distance 1. It cannot move this activation but CAN PERFORM AN ATTACK.

Edit: Problem freaking solved. Hire me FFG.

27 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Also, serious question: Is English your first language? I only ask because you seem to be having difficulty with deciphering pronouns.

And it no longer matters what else you say. You just lost all credibility

On 2/4/2017 at 0:47 PM, Undeadguy said:

wrong thread, sorry.

6 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

And it no longer matters what else you say. You just lost all credibility

Ginkapo, you're a huge doosh and I could care less about how you perceive me as a credible contributor to these forums.

and here's my version for the wording of the other interpretation of the rule:

For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead use your activations to place 1 of your set-aside squadrons within distance 1, unactivated. If activated through the use of further squadron command during the same turn, they can perform an attack but cannot move.

Is it clear to anyone this way?

22 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Ginkapo, you're a huge doosh and I could care less about how you perceive me as a credible contributor to these forums.

You made the attack and you are calling him names? You should recheck your opinion before attacking someone as such.

Your opinion can be correct it. Can be wrong. However a direct attack on someone is not OK.

Just now, Lyraeus said:

You made the attack and you are calling him names? You should recheck your opinion before attacking someone as such.

Your opinion can be correct it. Can be wrong. However a direct attack on someone is not OK.

First of all, I didn't make the attack. Fact.

Second of all, if someone is going to throw shade at me absent any provocation by myself, then I am going to respond similarly.

Third, I don't need you to be my moral arbiter in this matter.

*******

Edit: I was attempting to correct Warlords spelling.

Jesus Christ guys... drop it...

17 minutes ago, Sybreed said:

Jesus Christ guys... drop it...

Yeah I know. He's an attorney though. In theory knows how to handle people. I am barely applying pressure!

22 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Yeah I know. He's an attorney though. In theory knows how to handle people. I am barely applying pressure!

Ginkapo.

You took a harmless comment I made, not even directed at you, from an entirely separate thread, completely out of context and then proceeded to use my own comment to throw shade for absolutely no reason other than to harass me.

I don't know if you derive pleasure from doing things like this, or are just ignorant of your actions. Either way, its sad quite frankly.

Armada has a great community, and I've had the pleasure of meeting many players from around the country.

You're probably a nice guy and I would just ask you to refrain from these sort of antics in the future, as they are not conducive to maintaining a healthy gaming community.

25 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Yeah I know. He's an attorney though. In theory knows how to handle people. I am barely applying pressure!

Pressure? I know you are not even doing that. Many of us have seen you "apply pressure".

Still, people really NEED to understand that this is a FAQ of a card. A Clarification of the workings of the card.

Think of it as a Law. We got direction from on high of how to use that Law. Those on high however did not CHANGE that Law. Thus the wording on the card itself is still prevalent