I was thinking about battle choreography for the Rebels, and I had this idea. Now, I know it's absurdly expensive and difficult; my question is simply if it's possible .

Let's say I have a fleet with (among other things) Yavaris (Neb-B Support) and Gallant Haven (AFII-B). Yavaris has Adar Tallon on board, and Gallant Haven has Flight Commander and Rapid Launch Bays. Contained in the launch bays are Hera Syndulla, a regular VCX-100, and Keyan/Luke. Perhaps my target is an ISD which has already activated.

1. Gallant Haven manages to maneuver close behind the ISD. Thanks to Flight Commander, it resolves its earlier squadron command after it completes its maneuver. With its squadron value of 3 and its Rapid Launch Bays, it deploys all 3 stored squadrons in a tight formation within distance 1 of the ISD's rear hull zone.
2. Yavaris issues a squadron command which is relayed through the VCX-100 to Keyan/Luke, who attacks the ISD twice. Adar Tallon then toggles the activation slider.
3. Squadron phase begins, and Hera gives "Rogue" to both Keyan/Luke and the VCX-100. Now all 3 in the strike group have "Rogue", all 3 attack the ISD, and then all 3 fly off into the sunset together.

I suppose all this hinges on one thing: are squadrons deployed via Rapid Launch Bays considered activated? The card seems to imply that they are, but it doesn't actually say that.

You have selected #TeamPurple as your interpretation of choice.

Reference here for more information:

Just now, Drasnighta said:

You have selected #TeamPurple as your interpretation of choice.

I'm withholding my allegiance for the moment. You may do your best to sway me to your side.

You misinterpret.

I don't have a "Side".

I am stating that if you assume that the Squadrons are not activated, then you have assumed the Purple Interpretation.

If you assume that the squadrons are activated and immedaitely shoot, then you ahve assumed the Orange Interpretation.

That is the most significant distinction between the two interpretations - which, as I stated in the linked post, are both valid interpretations.

@Ardaedhel

Dude's wearing a Purple Shirt there.

4 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I don't have a "Side".

Then embraced the Dark side! Is funnier.

19 pages?! And still no official clarification? Hope I didn't just spark up a Forum World War III.

Anyway, thanks for the link. I'll check with my opponent and we'll decide on our own official interpretation.

2 minutes ago, Quantum Dot Guy said:

19 pages?! And still no official clarification? Hope I didn't just spark up a Forum World War III.

Well at least you now understand the responses you are getting here

If I may, it would seem to me that they should not be considered activated (from the perspective of game consistency and the greater Star Wars canon). I mean, squadrons that hyperspace in during an objective are not considered activated, so it seems that specially-designed launch bays - created to spew out fighters at a moment's notice - should work in a similar way. It's not like these fighters take any significant time at all to get up to speed; certainly not 16.7% of an entire battle.

Just now, Quantum Dot Guy said:

If I may, it would seem to me that they should not be considered activated (from the perspective of game consistency and the greater Star Wars canon). I mean, squadrons that hyperspace in during an objective are not considered activated, so it seems that specially-designed launch bays - created to spew out fighters at a moment's notice - should work in a similar way. It's not like these fighters take any significant time at all to get up to speed; certainly not 16.7% of an entire battle.

Do note that #TeamOrange argue that squadrons deployed by RLB are activated but get to attack immediately .

#TeamPurple submit that squadrons deployed by RLB do not get to attack right away but get to activate normally during the squadron phase (or by another ship... or even the same ship).

Mr. Gernes said squads deployed this way are activated and get to attack, so that is close to an official answer.

Which means no, you cannot do the stated combo. The AF drops off the 3 squads and they immediately get to attack in the order that they are placed.

Thing is, he didn't say it in any way that we can actually hear it, unless you were standing in FFG HQ at that very moment.

Give me an email ... That's all I need. All I want. Some measure of veracity.

[ citation needed ]

Really, though, we DO need a written clarification. Undeadguy's comment lends weight to #TeamOrange , but it isn't enough. Plus, as an exclusively Rebel player, I REALLY enjoy carefully orchestrated and convoluted battle plans, with multiple moving parts that all have to be perfectly positioned in order to work. [You should see me playing a Total War game.] #TeamPurple fits in to the Rebel combat philosophy much better, in my opinion.

By the way, I've read through 9 pages of the thread so far. Compelling arguments on both sides.

8 minutes ago, Quantum Dot Guy said:

[ citation needed ]

Really, though, we DO need a written clarification. Undeadguy's comment lends weight to #TeamOrange , but it isn't enough. Plus, as an exclusively Rebel player, I REALLY enjoy carefully orchestrated and convoluted battle plans, with multiple moving parts that all have to be perfectly positioned in order to work. [You should see me playing a Total War game.] #TeamPurple fits in to the Rebel combat philosophy much better, in my opinion.

By the way, I've read through 9 pages of the thread so far. Compelling arguments on both sides.

I tried clicking more times than I care to admit.

[ citation needed ]

Just now, Ardaedhel said:

I tried clicking more times than I care to admit.

[ citation needed ]

https://store.xkcd.com/products/citation-needed-sticker-pack

6 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

https://store.xkcd.com/products/citation-needed-sticker-pack

I actually just saw that while searching for the link.

I think I might get me a pack.

1 minute ago, Ardaedhel said:

I tried clicking more times than I care to admit.

[ citation needed ]

Yeah, I learned from the best.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/27/

52 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Thing is, he didn't say it in any way that we can actually hear it, unless you were standing in FFG HQ at that very moment.

Give me an email ... That's all I need. All I want. Some measure of veracity.

What if anything makes you think his assertion lacks reliability?

Just now, Warlord Zepnick said:

What if anything makes you think his assertion lacks reliability?

Honestly?

Because I've been lied to (directly) in the past.

On these very topics and subjects.

I don't *trust* easily, so I look at things that are either verifiable, or at least, annoying to fabricate.

The same thing comes up with my emails with Mr. Gernes in the past - I don't discuss specifics or examples within those, because they're in-confidence and this, unverifiable and not for public consumption.

An Email reply that has been triggered through the rules link, at the very least is. They also follow a specific format which - although not foolproofly so - is annoying to replicate. Michael also has a way of typing that is somewhat distinctive. So I do consider them at at least a baseline pub-test verifiable.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Honestly?

Because I've been lied to (directly) in the past.

On these very topics and subjects.

I don't *trust* easily, so I look at things that are either verifiable, or at least, annoying to fabricate.

I wasn't there at the tournament, but JJ and several others were. I highly doubt they were all in on it together to give false information to us about RLB.

And EVEN if the ruling is false or overturned in the FAQ, for the time being, we at least have an answer so people are calm.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

The same thing comes up with my emails with Mr. Gernes in the past - I don't discuss specifics or examples within those, because they're in-confidence and this, unverifiable and not for public consumption.

21 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I wasn't there at the tournament, but JJ and several others were. I highly doubt they were all in on it together to give false information to us about RLB.

And EVEN if the ruling is false or overturned in the FAQ, for the time being, we at least have an answer so people are calm.

Am I correct in understanding that he was acting as a tournament official when he said that? If so, would it thus be reasonable to say that he could have been using his executive authority to resolve the debate - in the way he thought best - for that match , in lieu of an official ruling? I'm not trying to be contrary or anything. I just want some honest opinions about precisely how official that statement is.

19 minutes ago, Quantum Dot Guy said:

Am I correct in understanding that he was acting as a tournament official when he said that? If so, would it thus be reasonable to say that he could have been using his executive authority to resolve the debate - in the way he thought best - for that match , in lieu of an official ruling? I'm not trying to be contrary or anything. I just want some honest opinions about precisely how official that statement is.

From my knowledge, yes, Michael was the TO for the Minnesota regionals. The rest of the community was told that he ruled RLB activates squads and allows them to attack when they are placed. It is possible it was a single case, but I find it more likely he would stay consistent and in the FAQ it will be the same ruling he made. That said, it is possible the dev team will overrule and go the other way, or come up with something else.

I like to play with rules that are consistent with what FFG says, even if it is not FAQ official. I'd rather have something, even if I don't agree, than nothing.