40 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

So I guess I caught something FFG nor the play testers saw huh. What has my life become, sitting on the floor discussing rules for this game eating ice cream and drinking tequila while my cats claw at me for affection.

I think they may just be waiting for the curdled ice cream to come back up. Animals can sense a storm approaching.

4 minutes ago, reegsk said:

The thing I would LOVE to see happen to this. . .

1. Dras keeps his entire fleet in hyperspace.
2. Opponent Strategics all three tokens into a pile, parks fleet around them so it's impossible to deploy a ship at Range 1. Stops.
3. Dras moves tokens after not deploying.
4. Opponent Strategics them back into place.
5. Rinse and repeat until Turn 6.
6. Laugh.

This is really similar to something that happened at a national 40k tournament. One player was trolling people all day with an entire army that started off of the table and came on the long board edge. He played a Ravenwing or White Scars (IIRC) player who zipped all of his bikes across the board and blocked the entire long edge. Troll player's entire army was unable to come onto the table and was destroyed. Massacre.

Yeah, but it'll take you a good few turns to Strategic all them tokens together, at the very least

The more annoying part is going to be taking the Double Interdictor ( NOSE PUNCH! ) and putting the G7s where the Hyperspace Points are likely to be nearby, so I come in at speed 0 and promptly get shot without defense tokens, since I'm second Player.

7 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Yeah, but it'll take you a good few turns to Strategic all them tokens together, at the very least

The more annoying part is going to be taking the Double Interdictor ( NOSE PUNCH! ) and putting the G7s where the Hyperspace Points are likely to be nearby, so I come in at speed 0 and promptly get shot without defense tokens, since I'm second Player.

That'd be pretty great as well.

And it wouldn't take that long. Squall moves three Lambdas, each one to Range 1 of a token. They move the tokens Range 1+Base Width+Range 1, then activate and move them that distance again. Not going to happen often, but in that perfect matchup (like the Bike Marine army above), hilarity ensues.

Just now, reegsk said:

That'd be pretty great as well.

And it wouldn't take that long. Squall moves three Lambdas, each one to Range 1 of a token. They move the tokens Range 1+Base Width+Range 1, then activate and move them that distance again. Not going to happen often, but in that perfect matchup (like the Bike Marine army above), hilarity ensues.

You'd have to hope a Distance 2 move, starting from within "effective" distance 3 of the Squall, which has boosted comms, is enough to hit the tokens with both movements.

As long as I deploy all 3 tokens distance 5 from the enemy deployment zone, and effectively Distance 5 + Distance 3 apart... I think I'm safe.

More so is better, too.

I do a lot of Token Shenanigans myself, usually... You have to, when you're relying on Nose Punch to do work

6 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

So. Is it possible to deploy 0 Ships and not lose the game?

It looks like it, potentially, at least......

All of the rules seem to specify that you would lose the game if ships have been destroyed - however, in this occasion, using Raddus, Profundity and Hyperspace Assault, nothing is destroyed - it simply hasn't been deployed yet?

Following?

Good.

From Hyperspace Assault FAQ:

"If all of a player’s ships in the play
area are destroyed, his ships and
squadrons that are set aside are also
destroyed. If the game goes to time, or
the end of the sixth round, his ships
and squadrons that are set aside are
destroyed."


From RRG:

• If all ships in a fleet are destroyed, ignoring squadrons,
the game immediately ends. The player with one or
more ships remaining in the play area is the winner.

It looks like you might be able to... In fact, for maximum crazy-age, it would have to basically be:

A Small or Medium Ship for Raddus to sit on and go into Hyperspace.
The Profundity for Raddus to hide behind his back.
A Small shi pwith Command 1 inside the Profundity
Any more than 3 Squadrons must be hidden in Rapid Launch Bays

Procedure:

Before deploying fleets, ALL of those Trigger with Hyperspace Assault:

First, Hide any excess Squadrons in Rapid Launch Bays.
Hide the Small Ship in Profundity.
Hide Profundity with Raddus
Hide Raddus' Ride, along with up to 3 Squadrons, with Hyperspace Assault.

Deploy Nothing.

Move Hyperspace Tokens when Able.

At the start of any round other than the first:

Deploy Raddus' Ride and Squadrons as per Hyperspace Assault Rules.
Deploy the Profundity
Deploy the Small Ship

When they activate, use Squadron commands where appropriate to deploy any RLB squadrons.

There you go.

The Raddus Bomb.

Any Questions?

Yes, it seems legit. We were talking about this over on Teamspeak, but never phrased it so eloquently.

I'll use Squall and my Lambdas/FCT and VCXs to put Raddus' entry point in the corner.

Raddus then just waits out the entire game, scoring a 6-5 MoV 0.

It was the best game of Armada ever

I'm inclined to think that we'll eventually get a ruling you need at least 1 ship on table, or you're destroyed. But for the time being it seems legit. And it's not really that lame either.

7 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

So. Is it possible to deploy 0 Ships and not lose the game?

It looks like it, potentially, at least......

All of the rules seem to specify that you would lose the game if ships have been destroyed - however, in this occasion, using Raddus, Profundity and Hyperspace Assault, nothing is destroyed - it simply hasn't been deployed yet?

Following?

Good.

From Hyperspace Assault FAQ:

"If all of a player’s ships in the play
area are destroyed, his ships and
squadrons that are set aside are also
destroyed. If the game goes to time, or
the end of the sixth round, his ships
and squadrons that are set aside are
destroyed."


From RRG:

• If all ships in a fleet are destroyed, ignoring squadrons,
the game immediately ends. The player with one or
more ships remaining in the play area is the winner.

It looks like you might be able to... In fact, for maximum crazy-age, it would have to basically be:

A Small or Medium Ship for Raddus to sit on and go into Hyperspace.
The Profundity for Raddus to hide behind his back.
A Small shi pwith Command 1 inside the Profundity
Any more than 3 Squadrons must be hidden in Rapid Launch Bays

Procedure:

Before deploying fleets, ALL of those Trigger with Hyperspace Assault:

First, Hide any excess Squadrons in Rapid Launch Bays.
Hide the Small Ship in Profundity.
Hide Profundity with Raddus
Hide Raddus' Ride, along with up to 3 Squadrons, with Hyperspace Assault.

Deploy Nothing.

Move Hyperspace Tokens when Able.

At the start of any round other than the first:

Deploy Raddus' Ride and Squadrons as per Hyperspace Assault Rules.
Deploy the Profundity
Deploy the Small Ship

When they activate, use Squadron commands where appropriate to deploy any RLB squadrons.

There you go.

The Raddus Bomb.

Any Questions?

You sir, are crazy. But the right and amazing type of crazy, I LOVE THAT!!!!

Raddus vs Raddus

Meh its more of a troll situation, but it requires your enemy to pick HA. Even if they do, it forces you to play your fleet in a predictible order because Raddus cant use his ability if hes off the table. This also further limit your activation number total, more then simply raddus would. This can backfire even more then fleet ambush. It also requires you to be second player as raddus, another really bad idea that can easily backfire. Could be FAQ, but wouldnt even need to, since its really not gona be overpowered, but simply FAQ because itll make stupid looking games if anybody brings it to any tournament.

From the perspective of a mathematician both of the statements

"all of your ships on the board are destroyed"

and

"non of your ships on the board are destroyed,"

are true when you have no ships on the board. This is called a vacuously true statement. It's like saying "all pink elephants can fly." You can't call that statement a lie because there are no pink elephants to to prove or disprove the statement. Don't know that this perspective adds much to the rules debate, but that is the way those statements would be treated in formal logic.

Pre Raddus could you have no ships and no squadrons deployed at start of turn 1?
I mean Pre Raddus Dras if you were running a Tournament and someone turned up with a Single ship and 3 squads, and someone picked their Hyperspace Assault, what would you have said? being honest that is.

If the answer is no, then the FAQ for Hyperspace Assault, is stating if no ships are in the play area, your ships/squads in Hyperspace are lost. It says "destroyed" because you must have had something in the play area to begin with.

So I am with PT106 on this, nothing in the play area is satisfying the criteria for losing.

2 hours ago, SODABURBLES said:

From the perspective of a mathematician both of the statements

"all of your ships on the board are destroyed"

and

"non of your ships on the board are destroyed,"

are true when you have no ships on the board. This is called a vacuously true statement. It's like saying "all pink elephants can fly." You can't call that statement a lie because there are no pink elephants to to prove or disprove the statement. Don't know that this perspective adds much to the rules debate, but that is the way those statements would be treated in formal logic.

If you don't believe in pink elephants then you need another drink sir

@Drasnighta , I was skimming this post (so I apologize if this has been brought up already) and it reminded me of a conversation you and I had about the G7-x tokens and hyperspace assault. see:

I was under the impression that putting the commander in hyperspace negated his effect? Wouldn't this negate his power forcing you deploy the set aside ship?

Just now, Darth Sanguis said:

@Drasnighta , I was skimming this post (so I apologize if this has been brought up already) and it reminded me of a conversation you and I had about the G7-x tokens and hyperspace assault. see:

I was under the impression that putting the commander in hyperspace negated his effect? Wouldn't this negate his power forcing you deploy the set aside ship?

Its a technicality of the order in which they are resolved.

By the time you put Raddus into Hyperspace, he has already resolved .

Making it go back would be similar to saying... "Oh, I just added a die with my ConFire Dial and I got the Acc I needed, so I didn't really need to reroll that die with the ConFire Token to try... can I have the original hit back?"

I mean, a big technicality overall is that there's a rule that says no upgrade cards, but only Objective cards can be resolved at setup.

Which, clearly, isn't the case. Since, basically, Raddus and G7s and Rapid Launch... All of those resolve at setup (and thus, must come under the Golden Rules).

4 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Its a technicality of the order in which they are resolved.

By the time you put Raddus into Hyperspace, he has already resolved .

Making it go back would be similar to saying... "Oh, I just added a die with my ConFire Dial and I got the Acc I needed, so I didn't really need to reroll that die with the ConFire Token to try... can I have the original hit back?"

Ah, that makes sense.

I think the rules reference, taken at face value, describes a fleet that deploys 0 ships as "destroyed".

"A ship is destroyed when it has damage cards equaling or exceeding its hull value. A squadron is destroyed when it is reduced to zero hull points. Additionally, a ship or squadron is destroyed if a portion of its base is outside the play area ." (Rules reference Pg. 5)

Add that to this:

• "If all ships in a fleet are destroyed, ignoring squadrons, the game immediately ends. The player with one or more ships remaining in the play area is the winner ." (Rules reference Pg. 13)

Therefore, if there are no deployed ships (their base is outside the play area), they are effectively considered destroyed. The player with remaining ships wins.

This makes sense for 2 reasons. First, it's applying the rules exactly as written. Second, attempting to manipulate the upgrades in ways they were obviously never meant to be goes against the spirit of fair and sportsman-like play. Regardless, reason #1 overrides even any players attempts to circumvent and exploit a possible oversight in the rules.

It's a clever idea, but no self-respecting TO would acknowledge an obvious attempt to exploit rules when there is at least a reasonable and documented argument against it.

If you take " Additionally, a ship or squadron is destroyed if a portion of its base is outside the play area ." literally...

.. Then a ship in Hyperspace Assault immediately blows up. even though the Hyperspace rule says YOU HAVE TO DO IT .

"Yep. Sorry. A portion of its base is outside the play area... Its destroyed."

If you believe that Hyperspace Assault overrides that rule, because that is what is intended by the very fact it exists ... Then you logically don't have an argument to deny the same concept to Raddus... He is a Rule that overrides the Rulebook as per the Golden Rules.

In fact, if you were going to argue it utilising the Golden Rules, then Raddus would be the one allowed, but Hyperspace Assault would not........ because the Golden Rules of overriding the rulebook apply to Upgrade Cards , of which Hyperspace Assault is not. It is an Objective Card, by all technicalities... (This is why the Advanced Gunnery ruling, at the time, was controversial-ish).

Fair enough, BUT.... if you had deployed ships at the start of the game, AND playing rules literally that undeployed ships (out of the play area) are considered "destroyed" by the rules as written, you're still fine concerning "game ends immediately". You HAVE ships in the play area, thus are still good to go. Your upgrade cards allow you to bring these "off the play area" ships into play in the round of your choosing.

I think this strategy is trying to trade one absolute reading of the rules for another. Make no mistake though, I still think it's clever. I just think that the opponent has a VERY real argument against it.

EDIT:

*** somewhere in there point out that everything seems totally legit with the Raddus bomb if you at least deploy a flotilla or SOMETHING during deploy fleet step of set up***

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

.. Then a ship in Hyperspace Assault immediately blows up. even though the Hyperspace rule says YOU HAVE TO DO IT .

"Yep. Sorry. A portion of its base is outside the play area... Its destroyed."

By the rules, those ships are considered "destroyed" while they are out of the play area. However, card rules allow you to "bring them in" (as stipulated by the various card) at a time allowed by the card. So no, your ships in hyperspace aren't eliminated from ever participating in the game (though they are "destroyed"), they simply need to get in the play area before your last ship in the play area is destroyed.

42 minutes ago, LeatherPants said:

Fair enough, BUT.... if you had deployed ships at the start of the game, AND playing rules literally that undeployed ships (out of the play area) are considered "destroyed" by the rules as written, you're still fine concerning "game ends immediately". You HAVE ships in the play area, thus are still good to go. Your upgrade cards allow you to bring these "off the play area" ships into play in the round of your choosing.

I think this strategy is trying to trade one absolute reading of the rules for another. Make no mistake though, I still think it's clever. I just think that the opponent has a VERY real argument against it.

EDIT:

*** somewhere in there point out that everything seems totally legit with the Raddus bomb if you at least deploy a flotilla or SOMETHING during deploy fleet step of set up***

I don't doubt that people will argue it.

I don't think they have a legitimate argument of it.

You need to read the rules as they are written. At least until they are re-written by someone who has the authority to do so... At this point in time , the rule - as written, with no biased of implied intention outside of written rules, or taken from other games, or other situations , states that the game only ends if ships in the play area are destroyed. At which case the ships in hyperspace are lost.

If you can make an argument, without using supposed intention, without referencing another game, using only the rules as written , that the game should end if I put everything in Hyperspace->Raddus->Profundity .... Then make that argument.

I make an argument, rules as written , that destroyed is the only time the trigger applies... I also have, as an addition, the supporting argument that the game does not end through inferred intention of the Hyperspace Assault Rules, when you only have 1 ship, and you place that ship in Hyperspace... (An odd scenario, but one that was more prevalent when we were dealing with the Core Set only )...

Can I foresee FFG coming back and specifically saying that this is disallowed? Of course. But those are the guys who have the only way of ruling as rules intended ... We can't do that.

The moment we start adding our own intentions and our own feelings of fairness , its no longer a Rules discussion. It is, at best, a Brinkmanship or Sportsmanship discussion. Same as if you are discussing hypothetical rules and their influences, you are no longer discussing Armada, you're discussing a game that resembled Armada at its heart.

This is... It can be an odd way to try to train your brain to consider... But it basically goes like this:

Whether you Agree or not about whether you believe the rule should be allowed, that's completely and utterly irrelevent to the actual discussion on whether the rules state if it is allowed or not.

It is a unique circumstance that should probably be ruled and discussed, because it is a new circumstance to come up? Yes. Kinda. I mean, it definitely should be ruled and discussed, but its hardly a new concept. that's why it was FAQ'd in the first **** place.

I have a firm belief that, at its core, this statement is True:

"You can have a situation where, through the application of a rule, you can have a game where you legally do not deploy a single ship at Deployment."

My Reference for that is the Hyperspace Assault FAQ. It says that, if you cannot deploy squadrons to the board (because you have no ship deployed), then those squadrons are destroyed...

The game doesn't end.

Merely Those squadrons are destroyed.

Leaving you with at least : One Small or Medium ship set aside .

Along with that, may be up to 3 Squadrons. set aside .

All of the above is True and is supported by the Rules As Written

Therefore, when you start adding to that

If you had Admiral Raddus, you could have a friendly ship, that Raddus was not on, additionally set aside .

If you had the Profundity, you could have a friendly ship with command 1, additionally set aside

If you had rapid launch bays o any of those ships, including the original in Hyperspace Assault, you could have up to that ships Squadron allocation of squadrons additionally set aside .

The wording is the same:

Set Aside

This is a clear cut set of rules precedence. If you allow even one of those, you allow them all, as they all reference the exact same mechanic. That is the mechanic of being set asid e at deployment

Now the idea that you can bring everything in at the same time? that's more debateable...

But putting them all in Hyperspace should not be , as it is supported by rules as written.

5 minutes ago, LeatherPants said:

By the rules, those ships are considered "destroyed" while they are out of the play area. However, card rules allow you to "bring them in" (as stipulated by the various card) at a time allowed by the card. So no, your ships in hyperspace aren't eliminated from ever participating in the game (though they are "destroyed"), they simply need to get in the play area before your last ship in the play area is destroyed.

So, you are making a statement that a destroyed ship can become un-destroyed?

Can you support that statement?

A Ship can't lose its destroyed Status... That is why even when you Engineer a destroyed ship with Rieekan , , it remains destroyed. You still remove it.

(The rule for destruction in this case is "has damage cards equal to or exceeding its hull value." - At which point, you engineer a card away, and it no longer has Damage cards equal to or exceeding its hull value , and it would no longer be destroyed - but it is. Ergo, Just the same as a ship that was destroyed because a portion of it is outside of the play area, suddenly is no longer outside the play area, would remain destroyed .)

What you propose, above, would mean that when I place my Hyperspace ship at the start of any turn. Its destroyed and the game still ends. ebcause it never stops being destroyed, once its destroyed.

And I apologise... I did really think all of this through over the past few days >.<

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

So, you are making a statement that a destroyed ship can become un-destroyed?

Can you support that statement?

Absolutely. The exact upgrades you wish to employ imply exactly that. However, there is a stipulation that they are also "set aside". That means if they are destroyed during the game , they cannot be brought back. They weren't "set aside". A ship outside of the play area is "destroyed". However, if it was "set aside", it triggers the appropriate card (mission or upgrade). It CAN be brought into play through the use of the card.

Just for the record, I generally consider your posts as FACT concerning rules interpretations, and quote you to my group. However, on this one, I just cannot agree.