20 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

A mental fart:

Projection experts let you do something else as part of the engineering command resolution. They require you from spending engineering points but it doesn't mean anything. If ffg would not write the points part you still being able of telegraphing shields. Yes, it doesn't have "as part of" in its wording but RLB doesn't.

If the FAQ would say "you may activate them with this command" then you would be able to do using this command and its rules. "You may activate them as part of this command resolution" means:

1. You may or not activate them. Great!

2. "As part means" that one of the effects of just resolving (thanks to RLB) that squadron command is that you are able to do point 1.

In other words. Activate squadrons with your squadron value is a part of resolving a squadron command. It is basically the only part it has unless you add upgrades. RLB allow you do somethings else as part of that resolution.

If ffg wanted us to activate those squadrons normally. They would say probably "with" but I will agree about it is just speculation. You asked why they didn't put "you may activate those squadrons" but then we would have a big difference. The fact that they allow to consider the activation of those squadrons as part of the squadron command means things as FC works on this squadrons without breaking the fact that the squadrons placed don't have to wait for an eventually activation from the ship that launched them or any other.

What are you trying to say?

Are you explaining how RLB works? Complaining about FFG and how they word things?

I'm asking bc I honestly I don't get your message.

7 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

What are you trying to say?

Are you explaining how RLB works? Complaining about FFG and how they word things?

I'm asking bc I honestly I don't get your message.

I just think "as part of" means that is an added effect the main point where I disagree with Lyr. However I understand his position. It is just that despite of the ambiguity it seems the FAQ bring (again) about RLB we keep the unofficial answer where MG defend that RLB activates the launched squadrons (I am not going to start a war about authority). IMHO with MG and the FAQ we have enough now.

23 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I just think "as part of" means that is an added effect the main point where I disagree with Lyr. However I understand his position. It is just that despite of the ambiguity it seems the FAQ bring (again) about RLB we keep the unofficial answer where MG defend that RLB activates the launched squadrons (I am not going to start a war about authority). IMHO with MG and the FAQ we have enough now.

We have enough. Agreed.

Lyr is wrong. Agreed.

Not seeing any ambiguity.

" When a ship with this card equipped resolves a O command ."

When you resolve a squadron command. AKA activate squadrons. NO ambiguity you're activating squadrons.

" it can place its set-aside squadrons up to the number it would activate during that O command. "

prior to this card you could only move one squadron at a time up to your activation value, you cannot move 5 squadrons one after the other and then start shooting with them once they have all moved, they go one at a time, the card is telling you to place them all at once, this is a direct contravention of the one at a time rule.

" After the squadrons are placed, they can be activated (one at a time) as part of that O command, but cannot move. "

This is permission to shoot, they moved already, this is telling you although you just broke a rule by moving X squadrons simultaneously, you may still shoot with them, in an order of your choosing, then flip its activation slider, until they are all done.

People trying to argue that you need to activate them with another ship, doesn't that sound fantastic, an ISD carrying 5 squadrons with RLB, needs 10 squadron command to actually get them 5 squads to move and shoot, in effect you need 2 ISD's (and a token or exp hang) just to get them to do what normal squadrons do.

Upgrades are supposed to be an enhancement, and by any metric, doubling the amount of squad command value needed is not an enhancement, it is a massive vulnerability and a debuff in effectiveness.

Perhaps this is the first in a new line of cards that refund points? perhaps that is it! FFG forgot to put a - symbol before RLB cost number.

Actually even if the ISD had a squadron value of 100000000 it cannot move and shoot with those 5 squadron as, you know, they cannot move this activation.

Other than the fact that this is as perspicuous as deciphering cuneiform after doing a couple lines of coke, I just wanted to mention again that I greatly appreciate the spirited debate: the card finally makes sense to me now. Of course, I eagerly await the next FAQ where I will discover that everyone is wrong and the way the card works is that you you're supposed to tear it in pieces, eat it, regurgitate it, and then place fighters within distance 1 of the regurgitated mass: fighters placed in this way are not "activated", but may be activated if the regurgitation is on a Tuesday or Thursday.

7 hours ago, Green Knight said:

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.

Good setup!

Oh and remember Adam Tallon then Yavaris

Who knows what will happen. I expect to be wrong but who knows.

The whole issue stems from the use of Instead of and the first part of RLB.

@TheEasternKing your point would make sense if this was an errata and not a FAQ. Since it is a FAQ you STILL have to use the cards wording. Thus the first part of the card still takes precedence.

27 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Who knows what will happen. I expect to be wrong but who knows.

The whole issue stems from the use of Instead of and the first part of RLB.

@TheEasternKing your point would make sense if this was an errata and not a FAQ. Since it is a FAQ you STILL have to use the cards wording. Thus the first part of the card still takes precedence.

Lyraeus, this is an FAQ so it overrides the card text. And you're mising something important: the FAQ text includes the [Squadron Command] header. Everything after that [Squadron Command] header at the start is the intended function of the card, from start to end . Rapid Launch Bays is a completely different ability from the normal squadron command, all the way through.

So let me break it down for you:

[Squadron Command]: "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."

According to this FAQ, which now explains the function of the card per the Golden Rule in the RRG, you (1) resolve the command, (2) can place set-aside squadrons up to its squadron value as per the instructions on the RLB card, (3) can activate those placed squadrons one at a time as part of the same squadron command without ever checking if there is sufficient squadron value afterwards , (4) but they cannot move.

This is because this is not a normal squadron command and the normal restrictions for the number of activations you get are never checked . The only restriction is that you may only activate squadrons which were placed from RLB. The Squadron Value was already checked by the part that allowed you to place squadrons to begin with. No part of the rules for activating squadrons in this scenario is checked until after the part where you activate them .

4 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

Lyraeus, this is an FAQ so it overrides the card text.

No, it does not. It would do, if it would have been an errata (as many have suggested it should be).

But the Rapid Launch Bay entry is just a card clarification.
So something that should explain how the card interact with others or the rules. The text of Rapid Launch Bays is still the same and not changed at all.

To bad it does neither of these correctly (clear any conflicts). They should just have made an errata and adjust the text to something that explain a little bit more what they want.

Sorry Tokra, you are right. It doesn't override the card text.

It overrules any other interpretation of the card text when those interpretations would be contrary to it. And the FAQ states clearly that players may activate placed squadrons as part of that same squadron command. A squadron command which is different from the normal command rules, and this overwrites the normal rules for the squadron command.

What's the altetnative to not being able to shoot by the squadron command that places them?

It's that another ship can activate them. So if my flotilla drops 4 B-wings just outiside of the range of an ISD, my Independence should be able to activate them on my next activation, zooming them into range with speed 4.

On 4/21/2017 at 7:49 PM, Sybreed said:

First, stop saying "interpreting the card for advantage". No one is doing that, we're simply trying to understand the *********** that FFG created here.

What he said.

And please don't refer to our earlier attempt to figure out how all this worked as 'dead weight'.

We were doing our best with what we had.

Just because you decided to time your return to the forums to coincide with the release of the FAQ, please take a second and think about how all of us struggled in the darkness without your interpretation lighting our way

11 minutes ago, Eggzavier said:

We were doing our best with what we had.

Just because you decided to time your return to the forums to coincide with the release of the FAQ, please take a second and think about how all of us struggled in the darkness without your interpretation lighting our way

I will add that, somehow, #teamPurple (which is precisely the interpretation championed by Lyr right now) was already one of the two options under consideration, even if the less popular one.

As an aside, it's kinda funny that there are more possible interpretations now than there were pre-FAQ.

47 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

I will add that, somehow, #teamPurple (which is precisely the interpretation championed by Lyr right now) was already one of the two options under consideration, even if the less popular one.

As an aside, it's kinda funny that there are more possible interpretations now than there were pre-FAQ.

Is anyone put Lyr arguing that teamPurple is still a possibility given the FAQ document? There are a couple of ways the thing could go but is teamPurple even vaguely one of them at this point?

Speaking strictly for myself I will follow/accept any interpretation that is NOT teamPurple (i.e. I need four activations in order to place and shoot with two squadrons.) I have never seen that as "rule as intended."

It is, with the new FAQ, even more possible than it was before.

And i stay to what i always said: the FAQ entry is not ok, we need a better one. The wording of the RLB is still instead. And instead is a replacement. And if you replace something, you cannot still do it.
The FAQ Entry does not clear anything in part of this. It only explains that you cannot move with this activation, that can still be done after the placement.

On 4/22/2017 at 10:17 PM, Lyraeus said:

While I agree with you on many point @Frimmel , the rules don't agree.

They need to straight up errata the damned card to fix it. It's not about advantage for me it is about the interaction of the rules.

Suddenly you get to set up X number of squadrons and then activate X more. You suddenly don't need Intel anymore. You don't need it becuase you can hang those squadrons in the bays and then jump them forward. Suddenly there is the ability to alpha strike whatever you want. Think of Rhymer, Jendon, Jonas, Nora, Howlrunner, etc and what happens. Think of any future Synergistic effects like those. That is where my interpretation goes. It thinks about the ramifications

On top of that now, the way the card is, you can launch them then later Activate them with a different ship ignoring movement restrictions. I can't argue at all that you can't do that becuase even the rule clarification states that can happen.

On your interpretation Frimmel, you ignore the entire replacement effect of the card. You. Treat the FAQ as if it was an errata. Nothing on the card changed. Not one dang thing. They just clarified that you can launch the squadrons unactivated which makes sense becuase you are resolving a Squadron Command without the word Activated in it. Hence replacement effect

Look, RLB is "Bombers to the Face." Accept that and this becomes easier.

I'm not arguing what the rules are. I don't care whether you want to call it errata or clarification. I don't care what it suggests or implies for other rules. I don't care that the ramifications make you uncomfortable. None of that is important. What is important is that we know exactly what we can or can not do. Golden Rule -- card overrides the rules.

Pick the way the card works that is not the strict teamPurple version (the FAQ is clearly NOT that reading of RLB to me and teamPurple never ever seemed like rule as intended) and I'll get behind it.

4 minutes ago, Tokra said:

It is, with the new FAQ, even more possible than it was before.

And i stay to what i always said: the FAQ entry is not ok, we need a better one. The wording of the RLB is still instead. And instead is a replacement. And if you replace something, you cannot still do it.
The FAQ Entry does not clear anything in part of this. It only explains that you cannot move with this activation, that can still be done after the placement.

Do you think that teamPurple is the rule as intended ? Do you think the intent for RLB was that you need four activations to place and attack with two squadrons?

3 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

Do you think that teamPurple is the rule as intended ? Do you think the intent for RLB was that you need four activations to place and attack with two squadrons?

I will stay out of the discussions for RLB and just wait for the next FAQ.
But i can see and understand all sides of the way how to interpret the card (something most don't, because they are so focused on their view that they ignore everything else, and this is the reason a discussion is worthless).

I only think that the writer of the card and the rule department really were sleeping when doing this card. And not reading the forum as well.
I really cannot understand how someone can ignore this endless discussion about the card, and present such a stupid FAQ entry after it.

14 minutes ago, Tokra said:

I will stay out of the discussions for RLB and just wait for the next FAQ.
But i can see and understand all sides of the way how to interpret the card (something most don't, because they are so focused on their view that they ignore everything else, and this is the reason a discussion is worthless).

I only think that the writer of the card and the rule department really were sleeping when doing this card. And not reading the forum as well.
I really cannot understand how someone can ignore this endless discussion about the card, and present such a stupid FAQ entry after it.

You're already in the discussion. You have more than one post on this page. You put forth an opinion. Now, you're back-pedaling when presented a direct question.

I agree that the FAQ is inadequate.

Lets try it in another way (i hope i can explain it well enough and choose the right words):

Imagine that i will give you 4 notes of $1.

You can spend each of this $1 on a coffee dispenser where you can choose between coffee with sugar, milk or both. There are several dispensers and you can only use 1 note on each dispenser.

Now you can choose not to get all or any of the notes, and place another dispenser instead for each note you did not take.
So you can get 4 notes, 3 notes and one more dispenser, 2 notes and 2 new dispenser, 1 note and 3 new dispenser or 4 new dispenser.
But these new dispenser that you place can be only used for coffee with milk, if you use the notes that i gave you together with the dispenser.

What do you have to do if you want to get a coffee with milk from one of these new dispenser?
A little hint, instead does not mean that you get the dispenser and the $1 note. You will not get 4 notes and 4 new dispensers.

And now replace dispenser with squadron, milk with attack, sugar with move, note with squadron value (and don't come up with the argument that there should be two kind of $1 notes.... )

This is ONE WAY how you can understand how RLB could work. And this is as well perfectly fitting into the rule that was written in the new FAQ.
I am not saying that this is the way how it should be intended. I belive it is was meant completly the other way around. But the card text is confusing and dubious. And if you go stricly by the rules, it could work as shown in the example.

As i said. I can see and understand the arguements for Team orange, purple, green, pink, brown and whatever other color team was around for this. And alone the point that there are so many views of this card around shows that this card is broken and need an ERRATA . And not some rule clarification that didnt even hit the main question.

7 minutes ago, Tokra said:

Lets try it in another way (i hope i can explain it well enough and choose the right words):

Imagine that i will give you 4 notes of $1.

You can spend each of this $1 on a coffee dispenser where you can choose between coffee with sugar, milk or both. There are several dispensers and you can only use 1 note on each dispenser.

Now you can choose not to get all or any of the notes, and place another dispenser instead for each note you did not take.
So you can get 4 notes, 3 notes and one more dispenser, 2 notes and 2 new dispenser, 1 note and 3 new dispenser or 4 new dispenser.
But these new dispenser that you place can be only used for coffee with milk, if you use the notes that i gave you together with the dispenser.

What do you have to do if you want to get a coffee with milk from one of these new dispenser?
A little hint, instead does not mean that you get the dispenser and the $1 note. You will not get 4 notes and 4 new dispensers.

And now replace dispenser with squadron, milk with attack, sugar with move, note with squadron value (and don't come up with the argument that there should be two kind of $1 notes.... )

This is ONE WAY how you can understand how RLB could work. And this is as well perfectly fitting into the rule that was written in the new FAQ.
I am not saying that this is the way how it should be intended. I belive it is was meant completly the other way around. But the card text is confusing and dubious. And if you go stricly by the rules, it could work as shown in the example.

As i said. I can see and understand the arguements for Team orange, purple, green, pink, brown and whatever other color team was around for this. And alone the point that there are so many views of this card around shows that this card is broken and need an ERRATA . And not some rule clarification that didnt even hit the main question.

This isn't what I asked.

I asked if you think what we have been calling teamPurple represents the rule as intended. Do you think the intent when they released RLB was for four activations to be required to place and attack with two squadrons?

No. I dont think team purple represents the rule as intended. But i would say the same with team orange.

To answer the question, you need to know what is the intion how the card should work. And neighter team orange, purple, green or whatever does know it. Only the designer does. But he was not able to reflect the intention to the right words.

And as i wrote earlier already. I am more Team pink. I stand between. I say that the wording of the card is not good and need a change to something that most can understand. Right now no one knows what the intention for this card is, and how it should work. Because the text is this badly messed up, that there is no "right" or "wrong" way to play it. And the rules clarification does not change anything. It made it even worse.

I would say I am team Pink as well. I the cards needs an overhaul

If wishes were Carrie Fisher...

But in the meantime...what will you do?