Zepnick... How about I simply re-emphasise some things you did not emphasise, which is the cornerstone of your argument:

|"For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set ...."

Your Argument hinges on the fact that the Placement is part of a Full Squadron Activation.

It is an interpretation which was covered earlier - but it is one which ignores the very meaning of the word "Instead".

That is where the argument gets murky... You're not activating, you're placing instead ... The other aspects of the activation (Shoot, etc), are not relevant, as this is not an activation. It is what you are doing instead of activating.

If the card stated that you activated, then by all means, I'd be behind it.

But it does not.

It is one of the things the card does not say, which has lead to this being a 6+ Page discussion.

Instead of conducting a conventional activation (i.e. moving and/or attacking), you are activating the squadron under the formalities of the launch card, which expressly states that you cannot move, not that you cannot shoot.

Still a stretch, as the card does not say that.

The only guidance we have on squadrons that are deployed and placed outside of the initial deployment state, says that they are placed unactivated.

If we were going to be placing things activated - would it not say to do so?

Edited my last comment to reflect your part about it saying whether we are going to place things activated.

The last sentence, "You cannot move this activation," clearly identifies this as a type of activation.

Ooh, one last one for me then, because I've already hashed all of these arguments before, and DiabloAzul does much better at that...

"Ship" activation, or "Squadron" activation?

How to assume it is one, and not the other, hmmmm?

Zepnick... How about I simply re-emphasise some things you did not emphasise, which is the cornerstone of your argument: |"For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set ...."

Your Argument hinges on the fact that the Placement is part of a Full Squadron Activation.

It is an interpretation which was covered earlier - but it is one which ignores the very meaning of the word "Instead".

That is where the argument gets murky... You're not activating, you're placing instead ... The other aspects of the activation (Shoot, etc), are not relevant, as this is not an activation. It is what you are doing instead of activating.

If the card stated that you activated, then by all means, I'd be behind it.

But it does not.

It is one of the things the card does not say, which has lead to this being a 6+ Page discussion.

Instead of conducting a conventional activation (i.e. moving and/or attacking), you are activating the squadron under the formalities of the launch card, which expressly states that you cannot move, not that you cannot shoot.

Wow, it doesn't say that at all. When a upgrade card refers to an activation, it is always the SHIP the card is equipped to (pg 13 rules reference Upgrade cards). RLB says you may place the squads, it does not say they are activated. Its worded this way for a reason, otherwise you could just drop bombers on ships with no chance for the defending player to react.

The last sentence, "You cannot move this activation," clearly identifies this as a type of activation.

Ooh, one last one for me then, because I've already hashed all of these arguments before, and DiabloAzul does much better at that...

"Ship" activation, or "Squadron" activation?

How to assume it is one, and not the other, hmmmm?

Respectfully, if you ask yourself this question, you might be thinking just a tad bit too hard.

Otherwise Dras, all the questions you asked are great because it helped me reinforce my argument. I do think my interpretation is the correct one and I think the community as a whole would agree that it is the better one (performance wise).

Zepnick... How about I simply re-emphasise some things you did not emphasise, which is the cornerstone of your argument: |"For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set ...."

Your Argument hinges on the fact that the Placement is part of a Full Squadron Activation.

It is an interpretation which was covered earlier - but it is one which ignores the very meaning of the word "Instead".

That is where the argument gets murky... You're not activating, you're placing instead ... The other aspects of the activation (Shoot, etc), are not relevant, as this is not an activation. It is what you are doing instead of activating.

If the card stated that you activated, then by all means, I'd be behind it.

But it does not.

It is one of the things the card does not say, which has lead to this being a 6+ Page discussion.

Instead of conducting a conventional activation (i.e. moving and/or attacking), you are activating the squadron under the formalities of the launch card, which expressly states that you cannot move, not that you cannot shoot.

Wow, it doesn't say that at all. When a upgrade card refers to an activation, it is always the SHIP the card is equipped to (pg 13 rules reference Upgrade cards). RLB says you may place the squads, it does not say they are activated. Its worded this way for a reason, otherwise you could just drop bombers on ships with no chance for the defending player to react.

"Otherwise you could just drop bombers on ships with no chance for the defending player to react"

I guess you'd better stay away from my ISD-I with 5 bombers sitting in it.

I see people's points on both interpretations that are being presented, but would you honestly take a 6pt upgrade that doesn't let your squadron attack when it drops? I feel like if the squadron could only drop with 1pt of the command and then spend an additional point of the command just to shoot it would be a waste of a slot and the points especially when you consider this a one time use card.

I also read the card as the 'activation' was referring to the fighters and not the ship, and in that sense the only restriction to me was the fighters can't move.

Respectfully, if you ask yourself this question, you might be thinking just a tad bit too hard.

Otherwise Dras, all the questions you asked are great because it helped me reinforce my argument. I do think my interpretation is the correct one and I think the community as a whole would agree that it is the better one (performance wise).

Unfortunately, you have made a statement there ( the community as a whole ), which is......... At least so far... Unsupported... By the section of the community that was just involved... In the discussion... For 6 Pages....

As it is. I don't know the correct answer, and I don't deign to know ... because I'm not the person who wrote this card.

I suggested this is FAQ material.

And as long as I can keep poking holes in either sides arguments, I will continue to believe this is FAQ material.

And that is just what I'm doing.

Because if I was, this would have been settled on page 2.

Or, I don't know. Maybe I've just had the Hubris beaten out of me or something. I don't know.

I'm sorry, but you just came across as exceedingly arrogant, and I don't know... Maybe I took that the wrong way.

Respectfully, if you ask yourself this question, you might be thinking just a tad bit too hard.

Otherwise Dras, all the questions you asked are great because it helped me reinforce my argument. I do think my interpretation is the correct one and I think the community as a whole would agree that it is the better one (performance wise).

Unfortunately, you have made a statement there ( the community as a whole ), which is......... At least so far... Unsupported... By the section of the community that was just involved... In the discussion... For 6 Pages....

As it is. I don't know the correct answer, and I don't deign to know ... because I'm not the person who wrote this card.

I suggested this is FAQ material.

And as long as I can keep poking holes in either sides arguments, I will continue to believe this is FAQ material.

And that is just what I'm doing.

Because if I was, this would have been settled on page 2.

Or, I don't know. Maybe I've just had the Hubris beaten out of me or something. I don't know.

I'm sorry, but you just came across as exceedingly arrogant, and I don't know... Maybe I took that the wrong way.

You mean the FAQ material that is effective as of 10/24/2016?

I see people's points on both interpretations that are being presented, but would you honestly take a 6pt upgrade that doesn't let your squadron attack when it drops? I feel like if the squadron could only drop with 1pt of the command and then spend an additional point of the command just to shoot it would be a waste of a slot and the points especially when you consider this a one time use card.

I thought that at first. But then I came around to think - it's probably a stronger card if the squadron drops unactivated . In the worst of cases, it can still attack in the squadron phase. And if it has Rogue or gets activated by another ship, it also gets to move this turn. Just not immediately when dropping.

Unstoppable (but very short-ranged) instant alpha strike vs flexible strategic deployment with a longer reach. They've both got their uses.

You mean the FAQ material that is effective as of 10/24/2016?

No.

[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.

If 'it' refers to the ship, then to me so does the 'activation' refer to the ship.

If 'it' refers to the squadron then so does the 'activation'. This is how i understand it.

If it's cross referencing both the squadron with the 'it' and the ship with the 'activation' then it is messy and illogical.

You mean the FAQ material that is effective as of 10/24/2016?

No.

You mean the FAQ material that is effective as of 10/24/2016?

No.

Oh, I see, you were just referring to it as FAQ material for the future.

I mean, I guess?

It isn't that hard to decipher the card, but if enough FFG employees are creeping on the forums, I'm sure it'll happen.

It isn't that hard to decipher the card ,

::shrug::

7 Pages, Man.

That's all I'm saying.

I see people's points on both interpretations that are being presented, but would you honestly take a 6pt upgrade that doesn't let your squadron attack when it drops? I feel like if the squadron could only drop with 1pt of the command and then spend an additional point of the command just to shoot it would be a waste of a slot and the points especially when you consider this a one time use card.

I thought that at first. But then I came around to think - it's probably a stronger card if the squadron drops unactivated . In the worst of cases, it can still attack in the squadron phase. And if it has Rogue or gets activated by another ship, it also gets to move this turn. Just not immediately when dropping.

Unstoppable (but very short-ranged) instant alpha strike vs flexible strategic deployment with a longer reach. They've both got their uses.

Indeed, it might be more powerful under your interpretation.

[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.

It's the 'It cannot move this activation' statement that does it for me.

If 'it' refers to the ship, then to me so does the 'activation' refer to the ship.

If 'it' refers to the squadron then so does the 'activation'. This is how i understand it.

If it's cross referencing both the squadron with the 'it' and the ship with the 'activation' then it is messy and illogical.

Check the rules reference on page 13 under upgrade cards, the card is always referring to the SHIP that is activating. The FAQ also covers placing squads outside setup, they are placed unactivated.

[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.

It's the 'It cannot move this activation' statement that does it for me.

If 'it' refers to the ship, then to me so does the 'activation' refer to the ship.

If 'it' refers to the squadron then so does the 'activation'. This is how i understand it.

If it's cross referencing both the squadron with the 'it' and the ship with the 'activation' then it is messy and illogical.

Well, the card says "this activation". Not "that activation", nor "its activation".

"This activation" may mean one of two things:

1. The activation that was just referred to (cf. "Choose a squadron. This squadron gains Rogue."); or

2. The currently ongoing activation (cf. "Card effects cannot be resolved this round.").

The problem with #1 is, there was no activation referred to earlier on the card. The squadron placement happened instead of a squadron activation. Plus FFG generally words such references as "that" rather than "this".

Check the rules reference on page 13 under upgrade cards, the card is always referring to the SHIP that is activating. The FAQ also covers placing squads outside setup, they are placed unactivated.

Erm, i see where the term "you" upon upgrade cards is defined. You appear to have taken a running leap and transferred that to the term "acivation". It does not say "your activation.

This argument is invalid.

The simple truth is. The card entirely depends upon the exact conotation of instead.

[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.

It's the 'It cannot move this activation' statement that does it for me.

If 'it' refers to the ship, then to me so does the 'activation' refer to the ship.

If 'it' refers to the squadron then so does the 'activation'. This is how i understand it.

If it's cross referencing both the squadron with the 'it' and the ship with the 'activation' then it is messy and illogical.

Check the rules reference on page 13 under upgrade cards, the card is always referring to the SHIP that is activating. The FAQ also covers placing squads outside setup, they are placed unactivated.

That's not exactly what the rules reference says.

It says: (p.13)

Upgrade Cards

When building a fleet, upgrade cards can be equipped to ships by adding their fleet point costs to the total fleet point cost. For each upgrade icon in a ship’s upgrade bar, it may equip one upgrade card with the matching upgrade icon.

• Equipped upgrade cards are placed next to the ship card to which they are equipped.

• A Rebel ship cannot equip an Imperial upgrade card, and an Imperial ship cannot equip a Rebel upgrade card. A card’s faction affiliation, if any, is indicated by the faction’s symbol to the left of the fleet point cost.

• A ship cannot have more than one upgrade card with the “Modification” trait.

• A title card can be equipped to a ship only if the ship and the title card share the same ship icon.

• A commander card can be equipped to any ship of the appropriate faction.

• If a ship’s upgrade card is discarded, it is flipped facedown but remains equipped for the purposes of scoring.

• On upgrade card effects, the term “you” refers to the ship that the upgrade is equipped to.

• An exhausted upgrade card cannot be exhausted again.

• Upgrade cards are readied during the Status Phase.

Related Topics: Commanders, Effect Use and Timing, Faction, Fleet Building, Scoring, Titles, Unique Names

There is no disputed "you" on Rapid launch, so i'm not sure what your point is in referencing this passage.

(This is also a bit silly; I don't think the ship itself is literally placing squadrons on the table within distance 1 of itself..)

[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.

It's the 'It cannot move this activation' statement that does it for me.

If 'it' refers to the ship, then to me so does the 'activation' refer to the ship.

If 'it' refers to the squadron then so does the 'activation'. This is how i understand it.

If it's cross referencing both the squadron with the 'it' and the ship with the 'activation' then it is messy and illogical.

Check the rules reference on page 13 under upgrade cards, the card is always referring to the SHIP that is activating. The FAQ also covers placing squads outside setup, they are placed unactivated.

Check the rules reference on page 13 under upgrade cards, the card is always referring to the SHIP that is activating. The FAQ also covers placing squads outside setup, they are placed unactivated.

Erm, i see where the term "you" upon upgrade cards is defined. You appear to have taken a running leap and transferred that to the term "acivation". It does not say "your activation.

This argument is invalid.

The simple truth is. The card entirely depends upon the exact conotation of instead.

To echo what I mentioned earlier.

The word "instead" exists to clarify that the set aside squadrons are operating under the activation limitation set fourth by the card itself-- the limitation being that you cannot move.

To echo what I mentioned earlier.

The word "instead" exists to clarify that the set aside squadrons are operating under the activation limitation set fourth by the card itself-- the limitation being that you cannot move.

And that is my interpretation.

However, it is not conclusive, there are other valid interpretations.

Hence the requirement for guidance in this case.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, based on the FAQ and rule book reference I stated earlier.

Let's assume that you guys are right. If that's the case, why ever bother with non bomber squads? You could just fly in and drop your bombers like a one use ordnance. It wouldn't give your opponent any opportunity to react. It's for this reason, along with the FAQ and rules reference, that I believed your squads are placed unactivated.

Well, the card says "this activation". Not "that activation", nor "its activation".

"This activation" may mean one of two things:

1. The activation that was just referred to (cf. "Choose a squadron. This squadron gains Rogue."); or

2. The currently ongoing activation (cf. "Card effects cannot be resolved this round.").

The problem with #1 is, there was no activation referred to earlier on the card. The squadron placement happened instead of a squadron activation. Plus FFG generally words such references as "that" rather than "this".

I think you are over analysing it!

Why would it go to great lengths to say 'it cannot move' and not 'it cannot move and shoot'? Answer: Because it can shoot.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, based on the FAQ and rule book reference I stated earlier.

Let's assume that you guys are right. If that's the case, why ever bother with non bomber squads? You could just fly in and drop your bombers like a one use ordnance. It wouldn't give your opponent any opportunity to react. It's for this reason, along with the FAQ and rules reference, that I believed your squads are placed unactivated.

Yes it would. You're on notice even before the start of the game that the opponent has a ton of bombers lying in wait inside his ship. You'd better stay the hell away from that ship or have your fighters ready to lock them down.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, based on the FAQ and rule book reference I stated earlier.

Let's assume that you guys are right. If that's the case, why ever bother with non bomber squads? You could just fly in and drop your bombers like a one use ordnance. It wouldn't give your opponent any opportunity to react. It's for this reason, along with the FAQ and rules reference, that I believed your squads are placed unactivated.