I'm on the fence, shared timing windows and picking resolution order is a well established part of this game.

That being said, I view HSA as an interrupt rather than a timing window in a turn of play. You interrupt turn play to execute HSA, and then play resumes as soon as HSA has been completed (Ship placed, tokens removed, Dials set etc etc)

And I do not agree at all that you can have zero ships deployed at the start of a game, and it not trigger a loss.

3 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

And I do not agree at all that you can have zero ships deployed at the start of a game, and it not trigger a loss.

I'm interested in knowing why you think that. Like, as a legitimate interest, because its not something my brain parses in that direction at all.

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

I'm interested in knowing why you think that. Like, as a legitimate interest, because its not something my brain parses in that direction at all.

For the same reason why you can't do double dial. Just because they rules have predefined most interactions, does not mean they include all of them. The stance "You can't have 2 dials of the same effect" infers the rules do not state you can do that. By the same logic, the game has very elaborate rules about destroying ships, and winning and losing the game. Just because the rules do not say "You don't lose if your ships aren't destroyed but not on the board", does not mean it is legal.

If that makes sense.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

I'm interested in knowing why you think that. Like, as a legitimate interest, because its not something my brain parses in that direction at all.

Tournament Document is where all Errata/FAQ are posted, yes?

Would someone pre Raddus turn up to a Tournament with 1 ship and 3 squadrons? hope someone picked their Hyperspace Assault? never ever happened, never ever would happen.

So we have a FAQ that states if all ships are destroyed, any ships/Squadrons in Hyperspace are lost. That is telling you if there is nothing in your play area, you lose your undeployed vessel/squadrons.

Why is it saying Destroyed? because pre Raddus you would never ever have a situation where someone was trying to deploy nothing, ergo there must be something to be destroyed for you to lose your HSA stuff, hence why they never clarified that if you have nothing in the play area, you lose everything not deployed. Why would they?

Pretty obvious something else was deployed along side the HSA stuff that wasn't deployed.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

For the same reason why you can't do double dial. Just because they rules have predefined most interactions, does not mean they include all of them. The stance "You can't have 2 dials of the same effect" infers the rules do not state you can do that. By the same logic, the game has very elaborate rules about destroying ships, and winning and losing the game. Just because the rules do not say "You don't lose if your ships aren't destroyed but not on the board", does not mean it is legal.

If that makes sense.

No, but there is at least an indication it is allowed via the Hyperspace Assault ruling on Squadrons unable to be deployed, so I get caught on that.

Just now, TheEasternKing said:

Tournament Document is where all Errata/FAQ are posted, yes?

Would someone pre Raddus turn up to a Tournament with 1 ship and 3 squadrons? hope someone picked their Hyperspace Assault? never ever happened, never ever would happen.

So we have a FAQ that states if all ships are destroyed, any ships/Squadrons in Hyperspace are lost. That is telling you if there is nothing in your play area, you lose your undeployed vessel/squadrons.

Why is it saying Destroyed? because pre Raddus you would never ever have a situation where someone was trying to deploy nothing, ergo there must be something to be destroyed for you to lose your HSA stuff, hence why they never clarified that if you have nothing in the play area, you lose everything not deployed. Why would they?

Pretty obvious something else was deployed along side the HSA stuff that wasn't deployed.

Again, the Errata on Hyperspace Assault does give an indication of what happens if your only ship is placed in Hyperspace... Any squadrons you need to deploy at the start of the game are destroyed.

Since that is part of the FAQ, this was something that was considered after the rules were written. It was added in later. If the intention was to end the game, right there is the perfect example an opportunity to ahve the game end.

Instead. It simply says those squadrons are destroyed, presumably with the assumption that the game is continuing.

That's why I'm caught in not seeing it.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

No, but there is at least an indication it is allowed via the Hyperspace Assault ruling on Squadrons unable to be deployed, so I get caught on that.

Yea but then you don't take any squads and you're fine.

I think this is the perfect example for your rules picture about eating dogs. All the rules allude to losing the game if you don't have any ships on the table. But you found a loop hole because it does not use the correct key words.

Aside from what I said, I see no rule that says you lose if your ships are not on the board but not destroyed.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

Yea but then you don't take any squads and you're fine.

I think this is the perfect example for your rules picture about eating dogs. All the rules allude to losing the game if you don't have any ships on the table. But you found a loop hole because it does not use the correct key words.

Its not a perfect example - that example, in particular, is simply pointing out a lack of a rule with no other precedence.

I'm showing precedence, and inferring intention form it. That's a whole other kettle of bantha fodder.

8 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

I'm on the fence, shared timing windows and picking resolution order is a well established part of this game.

That being said, I view HSA as an interrupt rather than a timing window in a turn of play. You interrupt turn play to execute HSA, and then play resumes as soon as HSA has been completed (Ship placed, tokens removed, Dials set etc etc)

And I do not agree at all that you can have zero ships deployed at the start of a game, and it not trigger a loss.

Thing is, the way I'm interpreting it, if you deploy with say, 2 A-Wings on the board and nothing else because you are running a Russian Doll strategy, if those 2 A-Wings kark it then you WILL lose. Because you HAVE destroyed all ships and squadrons on the board.

It is somewhat odd that this scenario was never discussed regarding HSA when the game was in it's infancy and test games was 1 VSD vs a Vette and Neb, and it's only now that it comes up.

As I keep saying though, this is all just a thought exercise that can only come about if BOTH players working together effectively allow it to happen. No sensible player is going to see a Matryoshka list, get first player, see Hyperspace Assault and think "I know let's make it so my opponent's ENTIRE FLEET can pop up out of 3 possible exits points of his choosing. This is a good idea."

Just now, Mward1984 said:

Thing is, the way I'm interpreting it, if you deploy with say, 2 A-Wings on the board and nothing else because you are running a Russian Doll strategy, if those 2 A-Wings kark it then you WILL lose. Because you HAVE destroyed all ships and squadrons on the board.

It is somewhat odd that this scenario was never discussed regarding HSA when the game was in it's infancy and test games was 1 VSD vs a Vette and Neb, and it's only now that it comes up.

As I keep saying though, this is all just a thought exercise that can only come about if BOTH players working together effectively allow it to happen. No sensible player is going to see a Matryoshka list, get first player, see Hyperspace Assault and think "I know let's make it so my opponent's ENTIRE FLEET can pop up out of 3 possible exits points of his choosing. This is a good idea."

Unless they think it will auto-table and they get the win. This is a "gotcha" fleet because of a loop hole in the rules.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

Also, there is no definition to "At" or "during" in the RRG. I think of "at" as being immediately. Something to ask FFG.

Presumably this is something someone at FFG has thought about; they can't have come up with Raddus and Profundity in the same pack without considering the interactions. So either they think the answer is clear (as with the Thrawn double command thing) and we're just missing something, or they have a plan to clarify this.

Or we've put far, far more thought into this than they expected.

Either way we interpret the timing rules, I think some people will be playing inconsistently (either with the asteroid damage issues, or with the simultaneous declaring thing) - and there isn't a clear answer either way. With nothing else to base things on, though, I'm going with the more fun option - Rebel Dolls. This is a game after all.

Quote

And I do not agree at all that you can have zero ships deployed at the start of a game, and it not trigger a loss.

This is a fun one as well. It seems obvious that if you have no ships on the board you lose. But... that's not what the rules seem to say. And Hyperspace Assault wasn't clarified to cover this, despite the FAQ covering similar points.

Of course, pre-Raddus/Profundity you'd need a pretty weird fleet to do anything with this. A 300-point fleet might work (VSDII with all the upgrades, throw in some very expensive squadrons, maybe Rapid Launch Bays to double the number of squadrons), but I'm not sure you could get much higher (278 in a 300-point game, 312 in a 400-point one?).

I'm not sure this is necessarily a loophole, given how risky and rare a strategy it is. But maybe we'll see a clarification for this to go with Profundity and Raddus.

Edit: Added some more thoughts:

Quote

During setup, if the second player must deploy a squadron but cannot because he or she has no ships in the play area, his or her squadrons that are not set aside are destroyed.

From the FAQ: to me this is pretty clear that it does intend that you could have all your ships in hyperspace - so not a loophole. Otherwise you'd never be forced to deploy a squadron (only happens if you've only got squadrons left to deploy) with no ships on the board.

4 minutes ago, Mward1984 said:

if you deploy with say, 2 A-Wings on the board and nothing else because you are running a Russian Doll strategy, if those 2 A-Wings kark it then you WILL lose. Because you HAVE destroyed all ships and squadrons on the board.

You can't deploy this way - as squadrons must be placed within distance 1-2 of a friendly ship. If there's no friendly ship on the table you can't deploy squadrons. Same reason you can't start with a squadron when deploying.

Huh. So you basically HAVE to take RLB on something (probably the MC80 you have Raddus sitting in, but who knows, the Profundity might have a 4 in squadron as well) or else you are wasting points if you bring more than 3 squadrons.

17 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Again, the Errata on Hyperspace Assault does give an indication of what happens if your only ship is placed in Hyperspace... Any squadrons you need to deploy at the start of the game are destroyed.

Since that is part of the FAQ, this was something that was considered after the rules were written. It was added in later. If the intention was to end the game, right there is the perfect example an opportunity to ahve the game end.

Instead. It simply says those squadrons are destroyed, presumably with the assumption that the game is continuing.

That's why I'm caught in not seeing it.

I think it would be pretty interesting, if it was what FFG intended, not seeing many people picking your HSA mind you, but it would be cool if it worked once, no?

I just don't see it being what FFG intended, I could be wrong, and we both know it wouldn't be the first time.

2 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

And I do not agree at all that you can have zero ships deployed at the start of a game, and it not trigger a loss.

I'm of a mind with you. Whether or not it's RAW, I can't imagine any scenario wherein it's not ROI. It's incredibly unfair to your opponent to take 2-4 turns of play away from them, and not at all in keeping with the spirit of the game, IMNSHO.

14 hours ago, Admiral Theia said:

I'm of a mind with you. Whether or not it's RAW, I can't imagine any scenario wherein it's not ROI. It's incredibly unfair to your opponent to take 2-4 turns of play away from them, and not at all in keeping with the spirit of the game, IMNSHO.

But it's no different from someone whose opponent picks Strategic/Corona and then deploys on the opposite side of the map, either running away or setting to Speed 0 to prevent most/any engagement opportunity from the opponent. Those objectives aren't required for an avoidance strategy, of course, they can just make it much more trivial. When the match-up is unfavorable or you don't need more than 5 points to secure a win, the most rational strategy is avoid the game. And it happens. I'd say at most tournaments I've played in there are a couple games where one or both players are intentionally avoiding the game to go for the 6-5/5-6.

So "forced engagement" or "engagement opportunity" is not something the game has ever explicitly required.

22 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

But it's no different from someone whose opponent picks Strategic/Corona and then deploys on the opposite side of the map, either running away or setting to Speed 0 to prevent most/any engagement opportunity from the opponent. Those objectives aren't required for an avoidance strategy, of course, they can just make it much more trivial. When the match-up is unfavorable or you don't need more than 5 points to secure a win, the most rational strategy is avoid the game. And it happens. I'd say at most tournaments I've played in there are a couple games where one or both players are intentionally avoiding the game to go for the 6-5/5-6.

So "forced engagement" or "engagement opportunity" is not something the game has ever explicitly required.

I'm pretty sure, "engagement opportunity" is something the game explicitly requires, hence the very specific fleet building rules, points cap, and the very in depth set up system for game play.

IF however you and your opponent chose not to fly towards each other, well that is on you. That is not the game designers saying you don't have to build a fleet how we say, and for this many points, or them saying you do not have to deploy ships & squadrons.

The entire premise of the game IS engagement opportunity.

Raddus with a supped up Liberty is fantastic. You pop in on a flank and dish out the pain. Profundity is a little more lackluster.

1 hour ago, TheEasternKing said:

I'm pretty sure, "engagement opportunity" is something the game explicitly requires, hence the very specific fleet building rules, points cap, and the very in depth set up system for game play.

IF however you and your opponent chose not to fly towards each other, well that is on you. That is not the game designers saying you don't have to build a fleet how we say, and for this many points, or them saying you do not have to deploy ships & squadrons.

The entire premise of the game IS engagement opportunity.

So some things that don't lead to engagement (avoidance deployment, Speed 0, etc) are "on the players," while other options that don't lead to engagement (hiding a fleet off-board with HA, Raddus, Rapid Launch Bays, and Profundity) are "not intended by the designers." Okay, got it. It's just odd, because the latter are all things explicitly designed by the designers to do exactly that.

My only question:

So Raddus says "You may set aside 1 OTHER friendly ship" This means he cannot set aside the ship he is on right?

Meaning if I wanted to do a thematic Scarrif Battle where Raddus jumps in with The Profundity he cannot because he cannot be on the ship that is being set aside correct?

However if I put him on and AF mkII I can jump that in (If my opponent for some reason picks "Hyperspace Assault") then from there I can jump in Profundidty and a Hammerhead corvette.

From a thematic point of view this feels like a fail. If I wanted to deploy Raddus aboard the Profundity it would have to be done during the deployment phase and I could set aside another Large base ship and a corvette for later deployment meaning all fire will be focused on the Profundity. The Profundidty would have to survive at least 2-3 rounds on her own to jump other ships into use full positions.

The other alternative is to deploy a small fast ship in the deployment phase and try to maneuver that somewhere useful without getting blown up for 3-4 rounds. when all enemy forces will be focusing fire on it.

Granted some amazing players may be able to make Raddus sing but I think it will be more failures than successes and the fact that is a thematic fail is what I dislike the most about it.

11 hours ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

So some things that don't lead to engagement (avoidance deployment, Speed 0, etc) are "on the players," while other options that don't lead to engagement (hiding a fleet off-board with HA, Raddus, Rapid Launch Bays, and Profundity) are "not intended by the designers." Okay, got it. It's just odd, because the latter are all things explicitly designed by the designers to do exactly that.

Not exactly what they were saying (and I think you know that). They specifically said "engagement opportunity". If you have ships on the board, no matter where you put them, I still have an opportunity to get to you and hurt you. If you're off the table completely then I don't have that opportunity.

13 hours ago, Swusn said:

So Raddus says "You may set aside 1 OTHER friendly ship" This means he cannot set aside the ship he is on right?

Yep. This ties in with the Hyperspace Assault FAQ which says set aside ships "are not in play. Their abilities and upgrades are inactive..." Assuming this applies to any mechanism for setting things aside, if Raddus was on the set aside ship he wouldn't be able to deploy ever as his ability would never be active. But we don't need to go down that route of interpretation as they've included that "other" there.

On 29/8/2017 at 1:42 AM, TheEasternKing said:

Why is it saying Destroyed? because pre Raddus you would never ever have a situation where someone was trying to deploy nothing, ergo there must be something to be destroyed for you to lose your HSA stuff, hence why they never clarified that if you have nothing in the play area, you lose everything not deployed. Why would they?

Pretty obvious something else was deployed along side the HSA stuff that wasn't deployed.

1 hour ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Not so silly and it could really came up:

Core game 150pts

Vic1 + Tarkin + 3Ties + Dominator (147pts)

As a reminder. Hyperspace Assault is a core's objective so is PRETTY OBVIOUS that possibility was covered!

So braking down the timing:

You bring 3 ships say, an mc30, an mc75 Profundity, and a HH. Through Hyperspace Assault you set aside the mc30 (where Raddus is), through Raddus you set aside the mc75 Profundity, and through Profundity you set aside the HH.

Timming would be:

First deploy the mc30 first through hyperspace assault.
Second deploy the mc75 through Raddus.
Last deploy the HH through Profundity.

Not mentioning how crappy this list would be, seems for rebels all that matters if it is possible or not. Not if is actually competitive or not. We dont know yet if Profundity will be able to equip RLB.

You need at least 2 more ships and several more squadrons to fill not only the meta activations, but also the points in your list, unless you are planning on a 100+ bid.

Who cares if is possible or not to start the game with nothing in the table. The only way you can do this is by having a crappy non-competitive list.

8 minutes ago, xerpo said:

So braking down the timing:

You bring 3 ships say, an mc30, an mc75 Profundity, and a HH. Through Hyperspace Assault you set aside the mc30 (where Raddus is), through Raddus you set aside the mc75 Profundity, and through Profundity you set aside the HH.

Timming would be:

First deploy the mc30 first through hyperspace assault.
Second deploy the mc75 through Raddus.
Last deploy the HH through Profundity.

Not mentioning how crappy this list would be, seems for rebels all that matters if it is possible or not. Not if is actually competitive or not. We dont know yet if Profundity will be able to equip RLB.

You need at least 2 more ships and several more squadrons to fill not only the meta activations, but also the points in your list, unless you are planning on a 100+ bid.

Who cares if is possible or not to start the game with nothing in the table. The only way you can do this is by having a crappy non-competitive list.

Says you. Maybe the profundity is so good that you don't necessarily need other ships