1 minute ago, LeatherPants said:

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.

Where it would remain destroyed, as nowhere does it state that it is not destroyed.

To my knowledge, there is no rule that says a destroyed ship CANNOT come back (in whatever fashion). "Destroyed" ships (per the rules of being out of the play area) ARE able to join the game when triggered by an upgrade card (assuming you met the initial condition, most likely being "set aside").

General Rieekan sort of sets the precedence for this. Your fleet is still legit until the end of the round even though your last ship may have been destroyed (you have no undestroyed ships in the play area), but his special effect is that at the end of the round, the ship remains in play. Thus the game is going to be lost at the end of the round (assuming you didn't kill your opponents last ship in the meantime - then it's all about the points) because you have NO ships in the play area (out of the play area = destroyed).

EDIT:

**that was a little hard to follow, I know. Pretty sure you get where I was going with that**

Two parts to Rieekan's rule:

1) it remains in the play area, as stated, but also:

2) It is treated as if it was not destroyed

The seocnd part there is as equally important as the first... If you only had the 1st Caveat, the 1st statement, then I think you're on to something... That all you need is the statement to remain (or enter) the play area...

But you also have to have something that says you are not destroyed, or in Rieekan's case, treated as if you were not destroyed ...

Without it. You're still destroyed.

8 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Two parts to Rieekan's rule:

1) it remains in the play area, as stated, but also:

2) It is treated as if it was not destroyed

The seocnd part there is as equally important as the first... If you only had the 1st Caveat, the 1st statement, then I think you're on to something... That all you need is the statement to remain (or enter) the play area...

But you also have to have something that says you are not destroyed, or in Rieekan's case, treated as if you were not destroyed ...

Without it. You're still destroyed.

All totally true, but a ship that is not CURRENTLY in the play area is also "destroyed". My point was simply that being destroyed in the most common way (all hull removed) does not preclude you from continuing to participate. Ships "set aside" are just as destroyed as Rieekas's last ship is (still eligible to participate) , the problem being is that they are currently OFF the play area, and didn't get back on before there were NO friendly ships in the play area, and thus ending the game.

Regardless, the debate may flare, and the hypothetical Raddus Bomb debate can continue, and both sides will have at least equal standing. I'm pretty confident that the next FAQ will resolve the issue if one player comes to the table with no deployments. In the meantime, I truly think this is at a stalemate and open to interpretation either direction.

There is also a situation where you could try to argue to fly a ship and maneuver with a corner off the board, and then, Engine Techs it so it is on the board... It is still going to count as Destroyed.. Even with Rieekan. Even though you would fail in the attempt, of course, because you are destroyed and never get there

49 minutes ago, LeatherPants said:

To my knowledge, there is no rule that says a destroyed ship CANNOT come back (in whatever fashion). "Destroyed" ships (per the rules of being out of the play area) ARE able to join the game when triggered by an upgrade card (assuming you met the initial condition, most likely being "set aside").

This logic leads to an absurd scenario:

1) set ship A aside with, say, Raddus' effect

2) ship A is "destroyed"

3) hyperspace in ship A at opening of turn 2

4) *pew pew* ISD shoots it that turn, it is destroyed again

5) HYPERSPACE IN SHIP A AGAIN. It was still set aside at the beginning of the game, right? It was destroyed, sure, but this isn't the first time that's happened. What has changed about its status this time?

Set aside != destroyed. This is a golden rule scenario.

3 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

There is also a situation where you could try to argue to fly a ship and maneuver with a corner off the board, and then, Engine Techs it so it is on the board... It is still going to count as Destroyed.. Even with Rieekan. Even though you would fail in the attempt, of course, because you are destroyed and never get there

That one is super tricky, my friend. The ship in question would END it's activation inside the play area, but would technically be outside of the play area before it could trigger Engine Techs. I won't argue that one, because I can see a very clear ruling of "destroyed", since it's not stipulated that the ship be outside the play area AFTER it's COMPLETE activation. Personally, I'd allow it if my opponent tried it, but I'd accept a ruling that said otherwise if I weren't calling the shots for the match.

Honestly, the primary reason I'd fight the True Raddus Bomb tactic is that it seem to be a) an obvious attempt to exploit the rules, and b) can credibly be discounted with a literal interpretation of the rules as written.

1 minute ago, LeatherPants said:

the True Raddus Bomb tactic is that it seem to be a) an obvious attempt to exploit the rules, and b) can credibly be discounted with a literal interpretation of the rules as written.

The same argument was made against the Vader/IO/Devastator combo before it was ruled legit.

"It just doesn't seem right" is something you have to divorce from your thinking here. Everything I do in this game (well, in a competitive setting) is an attempt to exploit the rules so I can win. Using interactions that aren't immediately obvious to you doesn't make them illegitimate.

2 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

This logic leads to an absurd scenario:

1) set ship A aside with, say, Raddus' effect

2) ship A is "destroyed"

3) hyperspace in ship A at opening of turn 2

4) *pew pew* ISD shoots it that turn, it is destroyed again

5) HYPERSPACE IN SHIP A AGAIN. It was still set aside at the beginning of the game, right? It was destroyed, sure, but this isn't the first time that's happened. What has changed about its status this time?

Set aside != destroyed. This is a golden rule scenario.

I suspected someone might chime in that a set aside ship that entered play, then was destroyed in the traditional fashion, could IN THEORY just redeploy because it was originally "set aside". The written rules on the cards state that the ship is set aside BEFORE deployment. AFTER deployment, it is no longer considered "set aside". If it is then destroyed during normal game play after it's eventual deployment, it's gone

Wheras I state that a literal interpretation such as you have made actually invalidates other adjoining rules, and thus, as a solution, it works for that specific case, but destroys the game in other cases. That, and the supporting rules that I have also added, I feel adds additional weight to the allowance of it.

Is it exploiting the rules? Well, that's hard... Is it a bigass technicality? **** straight it is... But so was Nose Punch ... Seriously. Hitting osmeone on the first activation of the game while they are stuck at Speed 0 and cannot spend defense tokens? Someone's going to call that exploitive , for sure.

But then, until you can define for me the difference between "exploiting the rules" and "playing to the rules", then that's a subjective subject.

TO me, trying to state that something can be destroyed without even existing is an exploitation of the rules... Which gets us nowhere

Just now, Ardaedhel said:

The same argument was made against the Vader/IO/Devastator combo before it was ruled legit.

"It just doesn't seem right" is something you have to divorce from your thinking here. Everything I do in this game (well, in a competitive setting) is an attempt to exploit the rules so I can win. Using interactions that aren't immediately obvious to you doesn't make them illegitimate.

I believe my argument satisfies both A) intention of designers, which truly isn't a reason to make a decision, but also B) RULES AS WRITTEN. I get the desire to exploit to win, however, a DIRECT RULES INTERPRETATION states that a fleet is destroyed if there are no friendly ships on the play area.

I don't suspect anyone who reads all of this to take either side as gospel, but I imagine that whatever side they favor in a game they may be playing in have gotten a fair amount of
"rules lawyering" from this exchange to argue their case either way.

5 minutes ago, LeatherPants said:

I suspected someone might chime in that a set aside ship that entered play, then was destroyed in the traditional fashion, could IN THEORY just redeploy because it was originally "set aside". The written rules on the cards state that the ship is set aside BEFORE deployment. AFTER deployment, it is no longer considered "set aside". If it is then destroyed during normal game play after it's eventual deployment, it's gone

But where did you find rules support for all those caveats?

When doesit stop having been set aside? "The ship that he set aside" still applies after it's been deployed and subsequently restored.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion vis a vis the Raddus bomb, btw. Mostly just playing Devil's Advocate, because while I agree with your conclusion, I disagree with your reasoning and I think it leads to absurd scenarios if followed to conclusion.

Anyway, sorry, I'll butt out. You guys had a good discussion going and I don't want to side track it.

LP, feel free to respond to me if you wish, but I'll just sit back and watch here.

21 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Anyway, sorry, I'll butt out. You guys had a good discussion going and I don't want to side track it.

LP, feel free to respond to me if you wish, but I'll just sit back and watch here.

All is well, and it's time for old guys to go to bed. I see the RAW on the Hyperspace Assault card, and I acknowledge it. My counter argument would be that it doesn't explicitly state that I can deploy a set aside ship a second time. Normally, a ship can only be deployed once (though I suppose THAT isn't EXPLICITLY stated either... LOL).

Again, I think this one is a great example of both sides having a strong argument to share with a TO. Until (if ever) an official FAQ addresses this, it will be on a case by case basis at the mercy of the presiding TO.

P.S. Thank you both for keeping this civil. Too many exchanges I've seen degenerate into name-calling and personal insults. Cheers, and goodnight!

No worries.

(Should I be worried that this appears to be a time when my reputation has not proceeded me? )

3 hours ago, LeatherPants said:

Honestly, the primary reason I'd fight the True Raddus Bomb tactic is that it seem to be a) an obvious attempt to exploit the rules, and b) can credibly be discounted with a literal interpretation of the rules as written.

a) Are you honestly suggesting that the designers did not look at the interaction with Hyperspace Assault when they designed a card based on... Hyperspace Assault ?

b) Hardly. See B) below.

3 hours ago, LeatherPants said:

I believe my argument satisfies both A) intention of designers, which truly isn't a reason to make a decision, but also B) RULES AS WRITTEN. I get the desire to exploit to win, however, a DIRECT RULES INTERPRETATION states that a fleet is destroyed if there are no friendly ships on the play area.

A) An intention that you know based on... what? May I remind you that Hyperspace Assault explicitly allows a player to not deploy any ships, and spells out the consequences for doing so (see green part below)? Deploying zero ships has always been possible and covered by the rules - it just never came up in practice before because spending 266 points on a medium ship + bid would be rather silly.

B) On the contrary - a strict RAW reading says the exact opposite:

RRG p.13, Winning and Losing :

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

Hyperspace Assault FAQ:

• Ships and squadrons set aside are not in play. [...]
• 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. [...]
• 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.

The literal , blue-on-white requirement for ending the game this way is that all ships in a fleet have been destroyed . Even if "set aside" ships were to be ignored entirely because they are not "in play" (see purple part), to fulfil this condition you would still need at least one ship to have been put into play and destroyed. Otherwise, this particular end-game condition has simply not been met, so play proceeds. Remember that the main end-game condition is 6 rounds being played. The "tabling" rule is an exception to this.

You further argue that "set aside" ships are "destroyed", but the HSA FAQ (see red part) explicitly says they are not - unless the player's ships in play are destroyed first, or the game ends in a different way.

In conclusion :

• Ships that are "set aside" are neither "in play" nor "destroyed".
• Their state can change to "in play" by deploying them (HSA, Raddus, Profundity)
• Their state can change to "destroyed" by the game ending (for purposes of scoring)
• Their state can change to "destroyed" by all friendly ships in play being destroyed first (this, in turn, triggers the end of the game)
• Play continues until one of the end-game conditions is met (e.g. 6 rounds played; the "tabling" condition requires at least one ship having been put into play and then destroyed)

1 hour ago, DiabloAzul said:

A) An intention that you know based on... what? May I remind you that Hyperspace Assault explicitly allows a player to not deploy any ships, and spells out the consequences for doing so (see green part below)? Deploying zero ships has always been possible and covered by the rules - it just never came up in practice before because spending 266 points on a medium ship + bid would be rather silly.

Not so silly and it could really came up:

Core game 150pts

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

5 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Not so silly and it could really came up:

Core game 150pts

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

Excellent point!

I just started to read this topic, but...

Isn't the rule of thumb is that while the admiral is not on board, his effect is nullified (No extra click from Madine, reroll from Screed etc.) Therefor if Raddus isn't on the board he can't hide the Profoundity therefor the Profoundity mst be deployed.

55 minutes ago, Norell said:

I just started to read this topic, but...

Isn't the rule of thumb is that while the admiral is not on board, his effect is nullified (No extra click from Madine, reroll from Screed etc.) Therefor if Raddus isn't on the board he can't hide the Profoundity therefor the Profoundity mst be deployed.

Continue to read the topic. We cover that.

On 8/31/2017 at 3:23 AM, DiabloAzul said:

Play continues until one of the end-game conditions is met (e.g. 6 rounds played; the "tabling" condition requires at least one ship having been put into play and then destroyed)

I don't believe this is correct as far as RAW are concerned. As I mentioned before, in a strict interpretation 'all ships in the play area are destroyed' condition is satisfied if no ships were being put in play - as there are no ships in the play area that are not destroyed. (For example: The ship somehow discarded all defense tokens. The statement "During status phase all exhausted defense tokens on the ship were readied" is true).

Note that if your interpretation (at least one ship needs to be put in play for the tabling condition to be met) is correct, it leads to the following scenario: I can bring empty fleet, with 400 points bid choose second player, use non-scoring objectives and enjoy automatic 6-5 wins. (EDIT: as ovinomanc3r pointed out, a need for a commander forces a fleet to have at least one ship)

23 minutes ago, PT106 said:

I don't believe this is correct as far as RAW are concerned. As I mentioned before, in a strict interpretation 'all ships in the play area are destroyed' condition is satisfied if no ships were being put in play - as there are no ships in the play area that are not destroyed. (For example: The ship somehow discarded all defense tokens. The statement "During status phase all exhausted defense tokens on the ship were readied" is true).

Note that if your interpretation (at least one ship needs to be put in play for the tabling condition to be met) is correct, it leads to the following scenario: I can bring empty fleet, with 400 point bid choose second player, bring non-scoring objectives and enjoy automatic 6-5 wins.

A fleet must have a commander. And a commander must have at least 1 ship and objectives. I think.

EDIT: I am correct. From RRG

A fleet must have one flagship and cannot have more than one flagship.

Just now, ovinomanc3r said:

A fleet must have a commander. And a commander must have at least 1 ship and objectives. I think.

This is true, so there is a mechanism to force a player to have at least one ship.