1 minute ago, Frimmel said:

Yep, teamPurple should have just got on board with teamOrange . Now they get bombers to the face and Yavaris bombers to the face plus any synergies of those fighters from when the first shoots since all the placement occurs before shooting.

And there weren't any Flight Commanders to RLB at the end of movement.

I think teamOrange won on this one. teamPurple was needing four activations to place and shoot with two fighters. Now those four activations have become four placements plus any four activations. I was wrong but for some reason I feel like I have a right to be mocking. Could have just had an activation be a placement with an option to shoot but noooooo...

Here's to t e a m Oran ple.

Always FC with RLB...always.

13 hours ago, thecolourred said:

Got a response from Mr. Gernes, apparently he supports #teamOranple. You can place all your squads, but then activate any that you choose (including none, or a different set of them). Unkillable intel here we come!

Hello [theColourRed],

In response to your question:

There seems to be some contention on the forum with Rapid Launch bays (RLB), which boils down to three ways to play it: Assuming 4 squadron value, with X-Wings already on the table, and B-Wings set aside. 1)RLB states you may spend squadron points to place a squadron instead of activating (so you take one of your set aside squadrons and put it on the table). You may then spend another squadron point to activate it. EX: spend 2 squadron points to place 2 B-Wings. Spend 1 Squadron point to activate an X-Wing. Spend last squadron point to activate one of the placed B-Wings 2)RLB lets you place any number of set aside squadrons on the table (without spending squadron points). You may then activate squadrons in range at will. EX: Spend 0 squadron points to place 4 B-Wings. Spend 1 squadron point on an xwing. Spend 3 squadron points to shoot with 3 B-Wings. 3) RLB lets you place any number of set aside squadrons on the table, then activate them (since the FAQ says you "can" activate those squadrons; ignoring common sense of the wording on Boosted Comms). You can then activate a number of squadrons equal to your squadron points. EX: Spend 0 squadron points to place 4 B-Wings on the table. Spend 0 Squadron Points to shoot with 4 B-Wings. Spend 4 squadron Points to move + shoot with 4 X-Wings Thank you for your time.

The second interpretration is correct.

The set-aside squadrons placed by the ship equipped with Rapid Launch Bays must be less than or equal to the number of squadrons that ship can activate during that squadron command. However, simply placing a set-aside squadron does not count as an activation. The ship can place squadrons and then activate those squadrons (or choose to activate other squadrons in range) as long as they do not exceed the number of squadrons it can activate. Set-aside squadrons that are placed cannot also move if activated as part of that squadron command.

To echo your example, a ship equipped with Rapid Launch Bays has a squadron value of “4” and sets 4 B-wing squadrons aside. During a later round, the ship resolves a squadron command from its dial and first chooses to place all 4 of the B-wing squadrons. Then, the ship activates 3 of those B-wings and 1 X-wing that are at its squadron activation range. The B-wing squadrons can attack but cannot move as part of that activation.

Thanks for your question!

Michael Gernes
Game Producer

Omg... did... did I call this?

I got a thing right?

If I activate the dropped squadrons later using a different ship than the one that dropped them, they are allowed to move, right?

1 minute ago, Green Knight said:

Always FC with RLB...always.

I'm pretty much seeing it that way as well. Strip the shields with either the bombers or the ship, push damage through with the bombers or the ship. I like options.

1 minute ago, Xeletor said:

If I activate the dropped squadrons later using a different ship than the one that dropped them, they are allowed to move, right?

Correct.

Just now, Xeletor said:

If I activate the dropped squadrons later using a different ship than the one that dropped them, they are allowed to move, right?

I think so. The word from Mr. Cernes implies the placed squadrons aren't activated.

Just now, Frimmel said:

I think so. The word from Mr. Cernes implies the placed squadrons aren't activated.

The ban on movement is only applicable if the placed squads are activated by the placing ship.

Just now, Green Knight said:

The ban on movement is only applicable if the placed squads are activated by the placing ship.

Exactly, which is where I got the implication that the placed squadrons aren't considered activated and thus free to be activated, as normal, by a proceeding squadron command.

Beyond stupid...

44 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

And there weren't any Flight Commanders to RLB at the end of movement.

You do know that FC and FCT are different slots, dont you?
What you are loosing would be Engine Techs if you want FCT.

7 minutes ago, Tokra said:

You do know that FC and FCT are different slots, dont you?
What you are loosing would be Engine Techs if you want FCT.

Now you're just nitpicking

Holy ****, I was right about something. Kip, alert the men.

The team oranple happy ending means everyone was right since the beginning...

2 hours ago, Tokra said:

You do know that FC and FCT are different slots, dont you?
What you are loosing would be Engine Techs if you want FCT.

I'm saying to add the Flight Commander as it didn't show in the list.

It doesn't make any sense! Both the card and the FAQ says that "it can place its set-aside squadrons up to the number it would activate during that O command"

Say: I have a ship with Squadron 4 and do a squadron command. I say would activate 3 squadrons so I place 3 squadrons, but then activate 4 as I activate an X-Wing appart from the 3 squadrons placed... What the FAQ?

2 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

It doesn't make any sense! Both the card and the FAQ says that "it can place its set-aside squadrons up to the number it would activate during that O command"

Say: I have a ship with Squadron 4 and do a squadron command. I say would activate 3 squadrons so I place 3 squadrons, but then activate 4 as I activate an X-Wing appart from the 3 squadrons placed... What the FAQ?

You're overthinking a little, I think.

By tying it to "What you would activate" means its not on the Squadron Value. Its on the activatable value.

What it lets you do is, if you have, say, a Nav Dial and a Squadron Token, it lets you place One squadron (even if you have 5 on board). You don't get to dump all of your squadrons and then activate only 1 of them.... Unless you're willing to (but not required to) activate them all.

52 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

It doesn't make any sense! Both the card and the FAQ says that "it can place its set-aside squadrons up to the number it would activate during that O command"

Say: I have a ship with Squadron 4 and do a squadron command. I say would activate 3 squadrons so I place 3 squadrons, but then activate 4 as I activate an X-Wing appart from the 3 squadrons placed... What the FAQ?

Placing is entirely separate from activating.

Place.

Activate.

Problem solved.

Glad our 4+ month adventure through the English language, rule interpretation, and vagaries of grammar is finally at an end.

There and Back Again, a Tale of Nerd Rage.

In which the Orange and Purple factions did battle, only to be vanquished by a surprise Challenger so mysterious that it indeed looked as if first the Orange faction and then the Purple faction had won the day.

Only through the wisdom of Supreme Leader Gernes do we persevere.

And so it goes.

I'd also like to take a Moment to add this... Its half-on-topic, but I just had a bit of a Run through on Facebook about....... :

Remember as well, that the Email put out is Email Advice , and although as much as people (myself included) would want this to be definitive on the matter. It is not.

Until it is placed in an FAQ, its not, for a better term, 'legally admissible' in a Tournament, as per the Tournament Regulations.*

(*To be legal and used at a tournament, it needs to be on the Star Wars: Armada section of the website - which includes the tournament regulations, rulebook, faq, and the event outlines, including take the station - but does not include any Email portions, as they are on the 'Community' section of the Website. They are technically Notes , and thusly, not allowed by players under tournament Regulations).

This seems a little nit-picky on the surface, but its something I want to highlight and put out:

Respect Your Tournament Organizer .

I know of one tournament organiser who has stated - openly and flatly - that they are not going to be adhering to the Email advice, because that is what it is - advice - and in their Tournaments, they are going to continue playing the way that their gaming group established and has been thusfar, as it is in line with the FAQ, but not necessarily the advice section.

As Far as I know, all participants going into these tournaments have known this in advance, and it was (at the very least) intended to be included as part of the discussions in the lead-ups to tournaments.

So, from a player perspective - if you're intending on travelling, or moving to a new area, or attending events in stores with TO's that you've not gamed with or talked to in the past - at the very least, ask them which way they're ruling these cards (and not just RLB, other contentious ones, too)... Ask if they're taking arguments, ask if they're hearing people out - but above all else - respect it when a decision is made... Boycotting stores and events because they don't rule the way you expect them to is... I don't know... part of me wants to say Fundamentally Wrong, but its not really - its your call, but I totally discourage you from doing it... There are things you should boycott over, and this isn't one of them.

Respect Your Tournament Organizer

A word from my personal file on this regard:

I don't expect anyone else to adhere to it, but as a TO, I consider there to be a bit of an unofficial contract between myself and the players. The players are there to play, and to have fun. I, as the TO, are there to enable my players to play smoothly, and have fun. Which means I'll do my best to get all of the claptrap out of the way well in advance, and post things so people understand it, and honestly, have to understand it before accepting to come. If your TO doesn't do it, ask that they do...

But in the very end, Respect Your Tournament Organizer , and they will respect you as a player .

With respect all around, Great Events can be Held.

Full Stop.

Wow. It is kinda funny that it's implied that the entire flaw in interpreting this card by this community was the fact that instead really should never have been on the card for it to be perfectly decipherable..........

Hell, I'm happy enough as long as it becomes an 'official' FAQ/Eratta. It's actually better and simpler mechanically than how I had house-ruled it with my dear old pops.

If it becomes a canon rule change, we should get a new card with an arrow pointing to the left (presumably at the RLB card) with the text of: "stop over-thinking. Use the token to place some set-aside squadrons up to your squadron value, and then activate as many squadrons as you normally could from everything in range, but the placed squadrons can't move.

17 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

You're overthinking a little, I think.

By tying it to "What you would activate" means its not on the Squadron Value. Its on the activatable value.

What it lets you do is, if you have, say, a Nav Dial and a Squadron Token, it lets you place One squadron (even if you have 5 on board). You don't get to dump all of your squadrons and then activate only 1 of them.... Unless you're willing to (but not required to) activate them all.

I was aware of that, but you're right that I was overthinking the matter. I was indignant about this whole issue and critizized something that wasn't the main problem and maybe I interpreted wrong about Michael's answer.
The main problem with this is that FFG absolutely ignored the "instead" word on the card for it to work like Michael says now.
If my understanding of the word is correct, for example you can do B instead of doing A. But in that case , you don't do both and in this answer he is saying that now with RLB you can place the squadrons AND activate other squadrons normally. For that it should have an errata, not a FAQ, doing this:

"For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may place 1 of your set aside squadrons at distance 1..."

Taking away the "instead" I can see it work like he said.

For one, I'm totally OK with the ruling given by Mr Gernes, and I think it is reasonably aligned with the FAQ entry.

...but I do find it somewhat cynical to call this a "clarification" when it's clearly an errata. There simply is no way that anyone reading the card (alone) would ever come to the conclusion that it should be played as ruled by Mr Gernes. Even with the FAQ, it's very hard to conclude that this is the intended working of the card.

Source: 30+ pages of discussion in which this interpretation never once came up.

1 hour ago, DiabloAzul said:

For one, I'm totally OK with the ruling given by Mr Gernes, and I think it is reasonably aligned with the FAQ entry.

...but I do find it somewhat cynical to call this a "clarification" when it's clearly an errata. There simply is no way that anyone reading the card (alone) would ever come to the conclusion that it should be played as ruled by Mr Gernes. Even with the FAQ, it's very hard to conclude that this is the intended working of the card.

Source: 30+ pages of discussion in which this interpretation never once came up.

Could be they don't want to errata it...yet. Could be they are so cynical they want to see it played e-mail clarification style first.

They did put it in a FAQ... after 4 months. One would think that they did not take this long just to ask us to playtest one possible interpretation.

But sure, I can see that. "It's not working out, so let's try out a new ruling since we have to clarify it anyway and, if that turns out alright, then we'll issue it as an errata." It's not an unreasonable thing to do... but it is an exercise in cynicism.