7 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Sigh.

You cannot resolve a command twice. You resolved command to place/activate those in the bay. You cannot resolve for something else.

So if I resolve a repair command I can't heal a shield and move a shield?

Really it's not much different to using a Nav Command to speed up and also triggering Engine Techs.

4 minutes ago, shmitty said:

Really it's not much different to using a Nav Command to speed up and also triggering Engine Techs.

Except you can't Engine Techs then Move. This situation allows you to turn everything Topsy-turvy and ignore an established rule. Not even ignore it, create your own interpretation of that rule.

No, it really doesnt.

You use the squadron command. It triggers the ability to use rapid launch bays.

When its time to use squadrons, you can use them.

You may now continue to activate squadrons. Including squadrons that have just been placed. If you activate a squadron that has just been placed you may shoot with that squadron, not move.

Its exactly like engine techs

You use the nav command. When its time to move you move. You now have a chance to use engine techs.

In each case the card tells you the order of operations- techs after a maneuver and RLBs when you start your squadron command.

There is no willy nillyness here. You only activate the squadron if you want to activate it. Placing it is *not* an activation but does *not prevent* activation from happening.

4 minutes ago, Grey Mage said:

No, it really doesnt.

You use the squadron command. It triggers the ability to use rapid launch bays.

When its time to use squadrons, you can use them.

You may now continue to activate squadrons. Including squadrons that have just been placed. If you activate a squadron that has just been placed you may shoot with that squadron, not move.

Its exactly like engine techs

You use the nav command. When its time to move you move. You now have a chance to use engine techs.

In each case the card tells you the order of operations- techs after a maneuver and RLBs when you start your squadron command.

There is no willy nillyness here. You only activate the squadron if you want to activate it. Placing it is *not* an activation but does *not prevent* activation from happening.

This looks like a solid interpretation and understanding of the rule. I don't see anything to counter it.

7 minutes ago, Grey Mage said:

No, it really doesnt.

You use the squadron command. It triggers the ability to use rapid launch bays.

When its time to use squadrons, you can use them.

You may now continue to activate squadrons. Including squadrons that have just been placed. If you activate a squadron that has just been placed you may shoot with that squadron, not move.

Its exactly like engine techs

You use the nav command. When its time to move you move. You now have a chance to use engine techs.

In each case the card tells you the order of operations- techs after a maneuver and RLBs when you start your squadron command.

There is no willy nillyness here. You only activate the squadron if you want to activate it. Placing it is *not* an activation but does *not prevent* activation from happening.

So you are ignoring the "Instead of" that preempts the replacement of Activating in the squadron rules?

Remember this is a Faq not an Eratta. So the wording of the card still stands.

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

So Place replaces Activate in the Squadron Command rule.

Except @Beatty that the you spend an available Activation to Place a squadron that is not considered activated can can be activated later on in that same Squadron Command.

5 hours ago, thecolourred said:

basically, they worded it in the FAQ in such a way that you have to spend your activations to place any number of squadrons first, then you can activate any one at a time.

You don't get to place + activate. If you are placing two squads, you have to place the two of them first, then activate them one at a time (with activations 3 and 4)

Edit: for clarification, the FAQ clearly states you have to activate after all squads are placed... so you can't place+activate at the same time. Since the card says you may place instead of activating a squad, you still have to give up a squad activation to place (and those squads aren't activated, since the FAQ says you can activate them later).

I'm glad I'm not the only one that is having trouble with this one!

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

Ok, trying to get what you're saying but as I read it it say "can activate" which means it doesn't have to right then.

Are you guys wondering if you can activate another Squadron that was not deployed by RLB while still deploying a squadron with that activation? Not sure where this is going 100%.

First off, remember that is the Faq not an Eratta so it explains how the card works not replaces the words on the card.

That whole bit is saying that you can still activate those squadrons as normal after they are placed (which is done like activating a squadron) during that command.

So example:

ISD uses RLB to Place a squadron unactivated using one of its activations to do so and then later Activates that squadron with another of its activations.

What everyone else thinks is going on is that the can place all of the squadrons on the card on the table them activate them as they please.

The last part ignores the card itself by the way

Hi Lyraeus, so in your example (ISD sqn value 4), you could spend 2 sqn activations to place 2 sqns, then spend the other two to activate them? For total value of 4, so that's the full resolution of that squadron command?

8 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

First off, remember that is the Faq not an Eratta so it explains how the card works not replaces the words on the card.

That whole bit is saying that you can still activate those squadrons as normal after they are placed (which is done like activating a squadron) during that command.

So example:

ISD uses RLB to Place a squadron unactivated using one of its activations to do so and then later Activates that squadron with another of its activations.

What everyone else thinks is going on is that the can place all of the squadrons on the card on the table them activate them as they please.

The last part ignores the card itself by the way

I don't think that's what it means. The way I read it, it simply says that after you place the 4 squadrons, you can activate them, but they can only shoot, not move.

edit: Otherwise, it'll take a spot in my top 5 of the worst upgrades of Armada

24 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

So you are ignoring the "Instead of" that preempts the replacement of Activating in the squadron rules?

Remember this is a Faq not an Eratta. So the wording of the card still stands.

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

So Place replaces Activate in the Squadron Command rule.

Except @Beatty that the you spend an available Activation to Place a squadron that is not considered activated can can be activated later on in that same Squadron Command.

Just a quick thought, they're saying "instead of" activating a squad you may place, if it cost an activation to place, wouldn't they say "you may spend an activation to place"?

They've not said that placing spends an activation, merely given a means to place instead of activation.

Just now, Darth Sanguis said:

Just a quick thought, they're saying "instead of" activating a squad you may place, if it cost an activation to place, wouldn't they say "you may spend an activation to place"?

They've not said that placing spends an activation, merely given a means to place instead of activation.

The card states it. Instead of activating you Place. The Squadron Command tells you what activating does.

6 minutes ago, Sybreed said:

I don't think that's what it means. The way I read it, it simply says that after you place the 4 squadrons, you can activate them, but they can only shoot, not move.

edit: Otherwise, it'll take a spot in my top 5 of the worst upgrades of Armada

This is how I read too. If you were just to place it without being able to activate it then why have the movement restriction at all.

So my understanding from the wording is that if you have a Squadron Value of 4 you can place down 4 Squadrons and activate them if you choose but can not move them.

2 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

Just a quick thought, they're saying "instead of" activating a squad you may place, if it cost an activation to place, wouldn't they say "you may spend an activation to place"?

They've not said that placing spends an activation, merely given a means to place instead of activation.

There are many ways they could have worded it to make the intent of the card very clear. Its frustrating that the wording of the card is so bad, and the FAQ hasn't untangled it either.

12 minutes ago, Ophion said:

Hi Lyraeus, so in your example (ISD sqn value 4), you could spend 2 sqn activations to place 2 sqns, then spend the other two to activate them? For total value of 4, so that's the full resolution of that squadron command?

Correct. Not amazing but to suddenly have heroes pop out, or to have surprise Intel, rhymer, etc you don't need to activate them, they may just be fine staying there providing their bonus.

Just now, Beatty said:

This is how I read too. If you were just to place it without being able to activate it then why have the movement restriction at all.

So my understanding from the wording is that if you have a Squadron Value of 4 you can place down 4 Squadrons and activate them if you choose but can not move them.

Thus you actually ignore the card itself. You take the FAQ as if it was an errata

Just now, Lyraeus said:

Thus you actually ignore the card itself. You take the FAQ as if it was an errata

I don't understand what you mean here at all. Everyone has been playing it as placing and activating them at all levels of play and I have never heard of this interpretation before.

1 hour ago, shmitty said:

Really it's not much different to using a Nav Command to speed up and also triggering Engine Techs.

This was my exact thought

2 minutes ago, Beatty said:

I don't understand what you mean here at all. Everyone has been playing it as placing and activating them at all levels of play and I have never heard of this interpretation before.

Does that mean they were right? Do we have to go over Xi7's again?

This interpretation is based off the fact and what you deem as everyone is false the rules forms has several threads on the pre Faq base.

Ok I have to ask. Has anyone else ever played the rule as Lyraeus interprets it? I have never heard this interpretation before and the FAQ seems to be trying to clean up the language not an Errata. That part I agree.

Just now, Beatty said:

Ok I have to ask. Has anyone else ever played the rule as Lyraeus interprets it? I have never heard this interpretation before and the FAQ seems to be trying to clean up the language not an Errata. That part I agree.

No, because that effect would be so bad, no one even thought of it xD

Honestly Lyraeus I can't accept your interpretation because it seems like a personal interpretation that is overreaching in its attempt. So unless others can back your interpretation it appears you are alone in that interpretation. (Can I say Interpretation one more time!)

I've been there before and it's not horrible, just sometimes we're wrong.

(Can you present a ruling or standing that will back your point? Because others have presented their's.)

1 minute ago, Beatty said:

Honestly Lyraeus I can't accept your interpretation because it seems like a personal interpretation that is overreaching in its attempt. So unless others can back your interpretation it appears you are alone in that interpretation.

Ive been there before and it's not horrible, just sometimes we're wrong.

It is personal becuase I actually read the Replacement effect? I do t even care. The card has always been fluffy and while decent it was never ground breaking.

Go read the rules forms. Then again, how many rules have we had over 2 years that everyone thought went one way and actually went the other. Who knows, if I am wrong I am wrong and I will be infamous once again and never care. It's not like people in my area care to play me no matter what I do so why should I ever care?

God's it has been a long week.

I stand by my point even when I do t think it is right. Someone has to do it and I am sullied enough so it might as well be me.

I've read the rules quite well too but still disagree. I think you're over thinking this one.

If you want to play it that way go ahead, most do not and will not. And since it is an upgrade that is almost never used right now it won't affect many games. So not really an important ruling.