OMG

Not only did FFG stuff up the wording on the card they managed to stuff up the wording of the FaQ.

Good one FFG. One has to wonder if they're taking this game seriously if they can't even be bothered putting in a serious effort to write it?

Hey guys, 'member when we all we could see was the title of the card, and we were all excited about learning what it would do?

I 'member.

Still looking forward to finding out.

6 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Hey guys, 'member when we all we could see was the title of the card, and we were all excited about learning what it would do?

I 'member.

Still looking forward to finding out.

I was there. I' member

So let's try an actual play example for a change:

My Avenger ISD-I w/FC/EH/RLB

It has Maarek, Jendon, Vader, Dengar, and Boba Fett (or maybe Rhymer in there, if I want more range - or Jonus for the Accs) sitting inside, idling.

(I'm just making this up... but you know you want to try)

The ISD reveals a squad command on round X.

I decides to use FC. It makes some pew pew, then goes rumbling down the table at speed 3. Weeee!!!

I place the 5 squads in front of my ISD (within 1).

I now have the OPTION of activating those squads, 1 at a time, as normal.

OC I do, hammering that poor MC80 I'm parked next to.

Caveat 1: None of my activated squads can move this activation.

Caveat 2: I can't activate OTHER squads: I've used RLB to trigger an alternate use of the squad command. The only squads I can activate are those that got placed.

Since I'm 1st player (the rest of my list is just bid and activation padding), I activate Avenger last/first. My bomber ball wrecks face and Avenger finishes the job with battery fire. Boom!!!

Note: If I was some sort of rebel scum, with Yavaris and whatnot, I might drop activating 1 or more squads. I'd just place them and leave them unacitvated for later shenanigans.

So, for gameplay examples:

This is the scenario I sent along with my question on it a couple days ago, with pictures, and I think it forces addressing of most of the possibilities. Note this isn't necessarily how I think it works: it's written to bring as many factors into play as possible to invite correction and clarification without unnecessarily complicating it.

----------

So, I have a command Pelta with RLB, so squadron value of 3. I brought 3 X-wings and 3 Y-wings. I load up the 3 Y-wings onto the Pelta before deployment.

On turn 3, the Pelta is at distance 1 of an ISD and wants to push shots at it. But there is a TIE fighter in the way. My 3 X-wings are in close-medium range of the Pelta, and less than distance 3 from the TIE, so I would like to activate one X-wing to pop the TIE fighter before attacking with some Y-wings.

The Pelta reveals a squadron command, and uses the RLB effect. I place two Y-wings, and use my third squadron activation to activate an X-wing to attack the TIE fighter. Then I use my last two squadron activations to activate the two Y-wings, who attack the ISD. (Pictures here, cause I know that's a lot to follow in text: http://imgur.com/a/RLCWL )

Is that right? I placed up to my squadron command value of Y-wings (2 of 3), then proceeded to resolve a squadron command as normal, activating the 1 X-wing in range and then the 2 Y-wings that I placed, with the exception that the Y-wings cannot move as part of that activation.

Further questions:

Could I have placed the third Y-wing and left it unactivated, instead activating the X-wing and two Y-wings as I did?

Can the X-wing activate like that, between placing and activating the two Y-wings?

If I'd had a squadron token, could I have placed all three Y-wings, activated the X-wing, and then activated all three Y-wings?

Thanks!

57 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

So, for gameplay examples:

This is the scenario I sent along with my question on it a couple days ago, with pictures, and I think it forces addressing of most of the possibilities. Note this isn't necessarily how I think it works: it's written to bring as many factors into play as possible to invite correction and clarification without unnecessarily complicating it.

----------

So, I have a command Pelta with RLB, so squadron value of 3. I brought 3 X-wings and 3 Y-wings. I load up the 3 Y-wings onto the Pelta before deployment.

On turn 3, the Pelta is at distance 1 of an ISD and wants to push shots at it. But there is a TIE fighter in the way. My 3 X-wings are in close-medium range of the Pelta, and less than distance 3 from the TIE, so I would like to activate one X-wing to pop the TIE fighter before attacking with some Y-wings.

The Pelta reveals a squadron command, and uses the RLB effect. I place two Y-wings, and use my third squadron activation to activate an X-wing to attack the TIE fighter. Then I use my last two squadron activations to activate the two Y-wings, who attack the ISD. (Pictures here, cause I know that's a lot to follow in text: http://imgur.com/a/RLCWL )

Is that right? I placed up to my squadron command value of Y-wings (2 of 3), then proceeded to resolve a squadron command as normal, activating the 1 X-wing in range and then the 2 Y-wings that I placed, with the exception that the Y-wings cannot move as part of that activation.

Further questions:

Could I have placed the third Y-wing and left it unactivated, instead activating the X-wing and two Y-wings as I did?

Can the X-wing activate like that, between placing and activating the two Y-wings?

If I'd had a squadron token, could I have placed all three Y-wings, activated the X-wing, and then activated all three Y-wings?

Thanks!

This is the one question FFG do need to answer,

Can you split your Squad cap value between launching/activating set aside squads and ones already in play, I'd like to say I don't see why not, the card does not say you must launch up to your squad value, only you can use up to your full value to launch set aside squads.

Whether FFG agree or not is a different matter.

6 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

So, for gameplay examples:

This is the scenario I sent along with my question on it a couple days ago, with pictures, and I think it forces addressing of most of the possibilities. Note this isn't necessarily how I think it works: it's written to bring as many factors into play as possible to invite correction and clarification without unnecessarily complicating it.

----------

So, I have a command Pelta with RLB, so squadron value of 3. I brought 3 X-wings and 3 Y-wings. I load up the 3 Y-wings onto the Pelta before deployment.

On turn 3, the Pelta is at distance 1 of an ISD and wants to push shots at it. But there is a TIE fighter in the way. My 3 X-wings are in close-medium range of the Pelta, and less than distance 3 from the TIE, so I would like to activate one X-wing to pop the TIE fighter before attacking with some Y-wings.

The Pelta reveals a squadron command, and uses the RLB effect. I place two Y-wings, and use my third squadron activation to activate an X-wing to attack the TIE fighter. Then I use my last two squadron activations to activate the two Y-wings, who attack the ISD. (Pictures here, cause I know that's a lot to follow in text: http://imgur.com/a/RLCWL )

Is that right? I placed up to my squadron command value of Y-wings (2 of 3), then proceeded to resolve a squadron command as normal, activating the 1 X-wing in range and then the 2 Y-wings that I placed, with the exception that the Y-wings cannot move as part of that activation.

Further questions:

Could I have placed the third Y-wing and left it unactivated, instead activating the X-wing and two Y-wings as I did?

Can the X-wing activate like that, between placing and activating the two Y-wings?

If I'd had a squadron token, could I have placed all three Y-wings, activated the X-wing, and then activated all three Y-wings?

Thanks!

I think you covered everything still outstanding.

If they answer this question in less than 6 months time I'll be satisfied.

16 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

So, for gameplay examples:

This is the scenario I sent along with my question on it a couple days ago, with pictures, and I think it forces addressing of most of the possibilities. Note this isn't necessarily how I think it works: it's written to bring as many factors into play as possible to invite correction and clarification without unnecessarily complicating it.

----------

So, I have a command Pelta with RLB, so squadron value of 3. I brought 3 X-wings and 3 Y-wings. I load up the 3 Y-wings onto the Pelta before deployment.

On turn 3, the Pelta is at distance 1 of an ISD and wants to push shots at it. But there is a TIE fighter in the way. My 3 X-wings are in close-medium range of the Pelta, and less than distance 3 from the TIE, so I would like to activate one X-wing to pop the TIE fighter before attacking with some Y-wings.

The Pelta reveals a squadron command, and uses the RLB effect. I place two Y-wings, and use my third squadron activation to activate an X-wing to attack the TIE fighter. Then I use my last two squadron activations to activate the two Y-wings, who attack the ISD. (Pictures here, cause I know that's a lot to follow in text: http://imgur.com/a/RLCWL )

Is that right? I placed up to my squadron command value of Y-wings (2 of 3), then proceeded to resolve a squadron command as normal, activating the 1 X-wing in range and then the 2 Y-wings that I placed, with the exception that the Y-wings cannot move as part of that activation.

Further questions:

Could I have placed the third Y-wing and left it unactivated, instead activating the X-wing and two Y-wings as I did?

Can the X-wing activate like that, between placing and activating the two Y-wings?

If I'd had a squadron token, could I have placed all three Y-wings, activated the X-wing, and then activated all three Y-wings?

Thanks!

you're missing #teamPurple in the examples you are providing: you place two y-wings with your first 2 squadron activations (fulfilling the "instead" clause), and then activate 1 of them with your 3rd.

4 minutes ago, thecolourred said:

you're missing #teamPurple in the examples you are providing: you place two y-wings with your first 2 squadron activations (fulfilling the "instead" clause), and then activate 1 of them with your 3rd.

Why would he mix that into this question? Would only confuse matters.

Just now, Green Knight said:

Why would he mix that into this question? Would only confuse matters.

Because he clearly wants #teamOrange. So on the off chance it gets passed on to some Asmodee employee that hasn't seen the card before and doesn't read the forum they will just pick one of his prompted answers.

3 minutes ago, thecolourred said:

Because he clearly wants #teamOrange. So on the off chance it gets passed on to some Asmodee employee that hasn't seen the card before and doesn't read the forum they will just pick one of his prompted answers.

If someone is very pro-Orange, they should word their own questions and submit them.

Anyway, IF FFG is Orange, then surely they will reply in an Orange fashion.

That the rules question would get passed to a random Asmodee employee is just contrived.

Purple.

Orange.

I get confused.

Which is which?

Isn't it better to actually call something what it is, rather than give it an color!?

3 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Which is which?

Isn't it better to actually call something what it is, rather than give it an color!?

#teamPurple: place "instead" of activating

#teamOrange: place + activate (removing the word "instead" on the card)

1 minute ago, Green Knight said:

Which is which?

Isn't it better to actually call something what it is, rather than give it an color!?

Mr Hasn;t-Read-Dras's-Detailed-Descriptions-and-thus-is-having-trouble Knight, do you really think that's a better option?



I mean. They're on Page 9-10 of this Thread.

I honestly put a lot of work into them at the time, to describe what were the two main contentious points. Because "Orange" was simpler than saying "Are placed, Activated, and Immedaitely Shoot." and Purple was simpler than "They are Placed and not activated and can't do squat and activation means ship activation not squadron."

Its also mostly moot now, as FFG seemed to lean towards an answer that was inherently giving them both as an option, and not exclusively either way.

Just now, thecolourred said:

#teamPurple: place "instead" of activating

#teamOrange: place + activate (removing the word "instead" on the card)

OK, so I'm "orange" then. Making my above example completely wrong - meant purple, wrote orange.

#colorrebelwithoutacause

It would be much easier if the anything I agreed to got color-coded GREEN.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

Mr Hasn;t-Read-Dras's-Detailed-Descriptions-and-thus-is-having-trouble Knight, do you really think that's a better option?



I mean. They're on Page 9-10 of this Thread.

I honestly put a lot of work into them at the time, to describe what were the two main contentious points. Because "Orange" was simpler than saying "Are placed, Activated, and Immedaitely Shoot." and Purple was simpler than "They are Placed and not activated and can't do squat and activation means ship activation not squadron."

Its also mostly moot now, as FFG seemed to lean towards an answer that was inherently giving them both as an option, and not exclusively either way.

From now on: anything I agree with gets the color Green. Then MAYBE I'll remember

Just now, Green Knight said:

From now on: anything I agree with gets the color Green. Then MAYBE I'll remember

you should start posting in green text then.

4 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

From now on: anything I agree with gets the color Green. Then MAYBE I'll remember

Nope.

Like I said in the thread, Green is Inherently Biasing. You inherently Biased Knight.

10 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Nope.

Like I said in the thread, Green is Inherently Biasing. You inherently Biased Knight.

The important part is I'm always right.

Green is the color of correct.

Easier for everyone

* For certain values of Correct. Including Incorrect.

58 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Purple.

Orange.

I get confused.

you don't have to. You are team green. You are right, but do not know the answer .
Or you know the right answer, but are looking for the matching question.

3 hours ago, thecolourred said:

Because he clearly wants #teamOrange. So on the off chance it gets passed on to some Asmodee employee that hasn't seen the card before and doesn't read the forum they will just pick one of his prompted answers.

You caught me: I'm just hyper-keen to amp up RLB in support of my largely-squadronless playstyle.

You'll note that what I presented is pretty much the most permissive possible interpretation of the rule that I could capture simply, for the specific reason I mentioned: to prompt a thorough response. Using any more restrictive interpretation to construct the example would not prompt correction.

If I were asking "can I activate 3 or 6 squadrons in X scenario," and then used an example of activating 3, that would be permitted in both scenarios and wouldn't prompt a correction. If I'd presented an example of the purplish interpretation that you described, that would be permitted under either major current interpretation and would therefore be a useless example, because "yep, that works" would be the response for either case.

If you don't like my question and want to send in your own, I wouldn't fault you for it. I think this is the best way to get a clear answer, so it's what I did.

46 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

You caught me: I'm just hyper-keen to amp up RLB in support of my largely-squadronless playstyle.

You'll note that what I presented is pretty much the most permissive possible interpretation of the rule that I could capture simply, for the specific reason I mentioned: to prompt a thorough response. Using any more restrictive interpretation to construct the example would not prompt correction.

If I were asking "can I activate 3 or 6 squadrons in X scenario," and then used an example of activating 3, that would be permitted in both scenarios and wouldn't prompt a correction. If I'd presented an example of the purplish interpretation that you described, that would be permitted under either major current interpretation and would therefore be a useless example, because "yep, that works" would be the response for either case.

If you don't like my question and want to send in your own, I wouldn't fault you for it. I think this is the best way to get a clear answer, so it's what I did.

well, if you were going for the simplest response and hoping they would narrow to correct, you should not have used team orange, you should have used #teamFAQ where you get to place 3 squads, activate them, and then activate 3 more (with a squadron value of 3).

9 minutes ago, thecolourred said:

well, if you were going for the simplest response and hoping they would narrow to correct, you should not have used team orange, you should have used #teamFAQ where you get to place 3 squads, activate them, and then activate 3 more (with a squadron value of 3).

I dunno what you are reading, but it is not the card or the FAQ.

Keep making stuff up by all means.