Could use some clarification before I use this in a tourney. When you activate boarding engineers if you spend a squad dial do you keep the card to be used again?

No.

You must spend 2 things:

1) The Boarding Engineers card

and

2) Either a Squad Dial or Squad Token

That seems weird. The card says:

"When you reveal a command, you may discard a squadron dial or token and this card to choose 1 enemy ship at close range. Look at its facedown damage cards and flip a number of them faceup up to your engineering value (one at a time)."

Normally logic has you combine on "and"s and split on "or"s.

So to me is says:

When you reveal a command, you may discard

a squadron dial

-or-

token and this card

What makes you think otherwise?

I would think the intent is that if you plan ahead properly, it can be used multiple times. If you grab a token, to use it later, you have to spend the card too.

43 minutes ago, l0ner said:

What makes you think otherwise?

English grammar, for starters.

Compare:

1. You may discard [ a squadron dial | token and this card ].
2. You may discard a squadron [ dial | token ] and this card.

"You may discard token and this card" simply doesn't work.

Note how a single article ("a") and adjective ("squadron" is here used as one) precede both alternative nouns, effectively defining the boundaries of the "or" conjunction.

Now compare:

1. " a squadron dial , or a squadron token and this card , " (EDIT: without commas, this would be unclear)
2. "a squadron dial or token and this card"

The word "or" is a disjunction and the word "and" is a conjunction if you want to get technical.

I've written technical english for years. If the meaning was to group the clause of a dial or token, it should have then had a comma after the word token.

If someone says, "you can give me 100 dollars or 50 and your watch", what do you think is meant by it?

With your argument, the interpretation would be, that you can either give them 100 dollars or 50 dollars, and your watch. Hmmm, that would not make sense, would it?

Most people would interpret it as, you can either give 100 dollars, or 50 dollars and your watch.

The "a squadron" is implied on the token to shorten the text. You can not use that as an argument either way.

We can get technical if you want, as it happens it's also my area of professional expertise. While "or" is indeed a logical disjunction in mathematics, in English grammar (the explicitly indicated context) it's a coordinating conjunction.

Your robbery analogy is not appropriate - neither grammatically (word order and type matters) nor in meaning (it's heavily loaded with context, where the card is not). And in any case it can be simply disproven by a counter-example:

"All you need is a fast car or bike and an empty road."

While I agree that a comma after token would have made things clearer, I fully disagree with your ultimate conclusion.

56 minutes ago, l0ner said:

The word "or" is a disjunction and the word "and" is a conjunction if you want to get technical.

I've written technical english for years. If the meaning was to group the clause of a dial or token, it should have then had a comma after the word token.

If someone says, "you can give me 100 dollars or 50 and your watch", what do you think is meant by it?

With your argument, the interpretation would be, that you can either give them 100 dollars or 50 dollars, and your watch. Hmmm, that would not make sense, would it?

Most people would interpret it as, you can either give 100 dollars, or 50 dollars and your watch.

The "a squadron" is implied on the token to shorten the text. You can not use that as an argument either way.

At first i would ask 50 what? If you want to be petty be it fully .
Just ask a bit different. "You can give me 100 Euro or Dollars and your watch". How would most understand this? Not what is correct, just how most would understand it.

The Concentrate Fire icon count for the dial and the token. So must connect these together. At least most understand it this way. So it a concentrate fire token or concentrate fire dial.

Comma are fun. And missing commas are even more fun.
There is a example that i cannot translate so we. A king wrote a judgment about a person. The executioner got this paper, and didnt know what to do, because the king forgot the comma.
And with a comma on different positions, it was in one way kill him, and in the other way don't kill him.
In direct translation it would be something like this: "Hang him not let him go". Depending if you set a comma before or after not it will change the meaning.

But back to the card.

Version 1:
"When you reveal a command, you may discard ( a squadron dial or token ) and this card to choose 1 enemy ship at close range. Look at its facedown damage cards and flip a number of them faceup up to your engineering value (one at a time)."
Discard (token or dial) and this card. (Token V dial) this card

Version 2:
"When you reveal a command, you may discard a squadron dial or ( token and this card ) to choose 1 enemy ship at close range. Look at its facedown damage cards and flip a number of them faceup up to your engineering value (one at a time)."
Discard token or (dial and this card). Token V (dial this card)

If there is no comma or no () i would just do it from left to right. Token V dial this card

Don't try laws or technical english on Aramda. It was not writen by these, so using this rules will not work so well. There are so many cards that are not writen perfect and cause problems. But most understand what was meant.
But in this case they mean: "Discard: (token or dial) and this card." Even when it would work the other way as well.

18 minutes ago, Tokra said:

There is a example that i cannot translate so we. A king wrote a judgment about a person. The executioner got this paper, and didnt know what to do, because the king forgot the comma.

And with a comma on different positions, it was in one way kill him, and in the other way don't kill him.

In direct translation it would be something like this: "Hang him not let him go". Depending if you set a comma before or after not it will change the meaning.

"Wartet nicht hängen" is a classic

Was what you say confirmed by FFG in any way? I just do not agree with your arguments, sorry.

Armada is about making choices and planning ahead. Making a card that you can use multiple times with a dial, or spend in combination with a token makes sense. The command dials are not equal value to command tokens. I think the intention was to make these types of card usable in more situations with different conditions. (Boarding Troopers, Boarding Engineers)

I play regularly with a diverse group of about 12 people not including myself, and they all interpreted these cards as I said. Nobody seemed to interpret them otherwise. These are both players who play using english cards and german cards, some native english speakers from different countries (Australia, New Zealand, UK, USA) and some are native german speakers (Germany and Switzerland).

I immediately thought it was discard both the command (dial or token) and the card but now I'm not so sure. D*** you commas and/or your lack, d*** you grammar.

1 hour ago, l0ner said:

Was what you say confirmed by FFG in any way? I just do not agree with your arguments, sorry.

Armada is about making choices and planning ahead. Making a card that you can use multiple times with a dial, or spend in combination with a token makes sense. The command dials are not equal value to command tokens. I think the intention was to make these types of card usable in more situations with different conditions. (Boarding Troopers, Boarding Engineers)

I play regularly with a diverse group of about 12 people not including myself, and they all interpreted these cards as I said. Nobody seemed to interpret them otherwise. These are both players who play using english cards and german cards, some native english speakers from different countries (Australia, New Zealand, UK, USA) and some are native german speakers (Germany and Switzerland).

Just think about it.
Boarding Engineers. For 2 points. And you can do it every round. Just by discarding a Dial.
Maybe a "bit" overpowered?

Just another question:
10 / 2 * 5
What is the result?
If you have on () or comma, you just go from left to right. This is at least the way i do it.

And when i see "A or B and C" it is for me the same as "(A or B) and C". But this is my logic (and not all can understand my logic).

2 hours ago, l0ner said:

Was what you say confirmed by FFG in any way? I just do not agree with your arguments, sorry.

We could say the exact same to you. No meaningful progress here.

2 hours ago, l0ner said:

I play regularly with a diverse group of about 12 people not including myself, and they all interpreted these cards as I said. Nobody seemed to interpret them otherwise. These are both players who play using english cards and german cards, some native english speakers from different countries (Australia, New Zealand, UK, USA) and some are native german speakers (Germany and Switzerland).

Again, we could say the exact same to you. No meaningful progress here either.

2 hours ago, l0ner said:

Armada is about making choices and planning ahead. Making a card that you can use multiple times with a dial, or spend in combination with a token makes sense. The command dials are not equal value to command tokens. I think the intention was to make these types of card usable in more situations with different conditions. (Boarding Troopers, Boarding Engineers)

Maybe, maybe not. We don't have the luxury of knowing the designer's intent, so all we can do here is speculate. For example, Tokra argues that if your interpretation were correct, the card would have to be costed higher. He's speculating just as you are. Which is fine, but hardly a solid basis for interpreting rules.

Now, the part you still haven't addressed at all is the very first point that was made, regarding parsing of the card when reading:

4 hours ago, DiabloAzul said:

Compare:

1. You may discard [ a squadron dial | token and this card ].
2. You may discard a squadron [ dial | token ] and this card.

"You may discard token and this card " simply doesn't work.

Why would your boarding party remain on your ship? The whole point of a boarding party is to leave the ship.

Just now, Frimmel said:

Why would your boarding party remain on your ship?

They have a good Union.

Unlike the Bothans.

I really don't plan on arguing with you, there is no point to it. If you don't agree with me, then don't, is not like I am forcing you to in any way.

I haven't seen anything from FFG clearing this up, if you also have no information from FFG, then it is open to interpretation.

If you have a fact which clears this up, fine then give it, if not, you really should not make posts like your first, where you make a claim, and present it as a fact.

In the sentence, a squadron, is implied on the word token, either you accept this or not. You can't pick and choose when to have it be implied or not.

So you should either understand it as not being implied:

You may discard "a squadron dial" or "token" and this card

or you understand it as the implied version:

You may discard "a squadron dial" or "a squadron token" and "this card"

I asked several people, they all think that "a squadron" is implied on the word token.

That said, the question remains, how the conditions should be grouped.

Your argument seems to be that since the two are written together and the implication is there, that you are grouping the "or" before the "and".

That is where we disagree.

This could be the intent, but there is nothing to support this. I was clearly speculating, as are/were you. I just don't take the stance that I am right, cause I said it. (Yikes, I just might be wrong.=)

I don't think that the 3 cost is too low for a multiple use scenario. This card should not be seen as OP. The opponent just needs to stay out of close range and you can't even use it at all.

Consider that you have to be in the correct position to the opponent at the reveal command time in you turn to use it, I think it would not be OP if you can reuse it by spending a dial instead of a token.

You are even giving up two upgrade slots to equip it.

29 minutes ago, Frimmel said:

Why would your boarding party remain on your ship? The whole point of a boarding party is to leave the ship.

Sure, that is correct, however if they survive, they could always come back over to your ship and enter another ship later on.

Perhaps that even explains the difference between using a dial and token. Who knows?

Rules written with ambiguities, even if grammatically correct, is a big pet peeve of mine. You can write conditional (English) statements without any interpretation questions, yet so many authors ignore this simple and effective rule writing technique.

Unclear, wording (original card text):
When you reveal a command, you may discard a [squadron] dial or token and this card to choose 1 enemy ship at close range.

Written without any doubt:
When you reveal a command, you may discard a [squadron] dial and this card, or a [squadron] token and this card, to choose 1 enemy ship at close range.

Yes, it consumes more space, and reads less smoothly, but it does have perfect clarity.

1 hour ago, Thraug said:

Written without any doubt:
When you reveal a command, you may discard this card and either a [squadron] dial or token to choose 1 enemy ship at close range...

FTFY. Clear, concise, and correct.

That said, DA's inference on the basis of the adjective's positioning is the strongest argument for either interpretation.

Other than the fact that this is plainly OP if it's 3 points and multiple use. "Just don't get in close range of it" isn't an option for black dice fleets, and a 3-point upgrade that hard counters a large swath of fleets out there is a tiny little bit silly.

it already has perfect clarity, it is a discard option, there is no option to not discard the card.

You may not have a Squadron dial, but have a banked Squadron token = you may use Boarding Engineers this round.

You may have a Squadron dial, but not have a banked Squadron token = you may use Boarding Engineers this round.

You my have a Squadron dial, and have a banked Squadron token = You may use Boarding Engineers this round.

All choices result in either the dial or token being discarded alongside the BE upgrade card.

I mean the card clearly reads :

When you reveal a command you may discard a (Squadron dial) or (squadron token) and this card.

That is in plain English, the upgrade card has a trigger requirement that must be met before it can be used, you need either a dial or a token, if you do not, you cannot use the card. The trigger being met allows the use BE to utilize the effect generated upon being discarded.

See, the issue here is that FFG does not write cards in technical English, but in colloquial everyday spoken English. I am not a native born English speaker myself (original language is Spanish) but I've been living in the us for over twenty five years.

as regards the card, every single native born English speaker I've talked to immediately understood the card to mean you discard either a token or dial, AND THE UPGRADE CARD AS WELL. So did I, when I first saw it, and still do.

Good Emperor, think about it. I'd put Boarding Troopers and Yularen plus Avenger on an ISD, put Jerry in charge, spam nav commands at speed three (with the token for Yularen for squadrons), and NOTHING would survive. Every single shot I took would be against defenseless targets, all for a three point upgrade. No, man. You spend the card. It's very clear conversational English, plain and simple.

I guess if you're not still convinced, then Europe can play it your way until FFG answers officially....but when they do, I guarantee the card gets spent.

To break from grammar and go with the core equation...

x=dial y=token z=card

[(x or y) + z] = result

not

[x or (y + z)] = result

On 07/23/2017 at 11:22 AM, Jukey said:

To break from grammar and go with the core equation...

x=dial y=token z=card

[(x or y) + z] = result

not

[x or (y + z)] = result

That is definitely the intent for the reasons pointed out above, but the sentence structure is ambiguous.

On 23/7/2017 at 8:22 PM, Jukey said:

To break from grammar and go with the core equation...

x=dial y=token z=card

[(x or y) + z] = result

not

[x or (y + z)] = result

To be more precise

a=squadron; x=dial; y=token; z=card

a(x or y) + z

vs

ax or (y + z)

In a more serious way, the lack of a before token makes impossible to read dial vs token+card.

Without its own determiner, token is put at the same level that dial. At the same time, card keeps its own determiner "this" which is different and cannot be omitted with "a".

"You may discard a dial or a token and this card". In this case we cannot be sure if the verb is followed by a disjunction with an enumeration in one option or by an enumeration with a disjunction in one of its pieces. Punctuation would be required to avoid ambiguity.

"You may discard a dial or token and this card". That is the current wording. The omission of "a" before "token" immediately links token and dial as the same grammar piece which contains a disjunction inside. In this case we know that we have an enumeration of things we have to discard as requirements. One of those requirements can be accomplished between two options (dial or token) as we wish.