1 hour ago, PT106 said:

I don't believe this is correct as far as RAW are concerned. As I mentioned before, in a strict interpretation 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).

While I understand where you are coming from, I can't agree that this is a (let alone the ) " strict" interpretation. The result of a strict check would be either "no" or, at best, "undefined".

I also don't agree that your comparative statement is necessarily true: yes, you have executed the instruction "ready all exhaust tokens", but you have not readied any tokens. It all depends on what the test is (well-written rules would add e.g. "Then, if you readied at least one token, do X" ). Otherwise, you could extend your logic to say, for example, that Vader lets you keep spending tokens you no longer have. Anyway, it's not a great comparison, because there is an instruction "ready all tokens", which you do perform every round, so as I said you could argue that yes, you have performed this step... but there is no such instruction for destroying ships! You can't say "yes, I've destroyed all ships in play: there weren't any, but I have carried out the task of destroying "all ships in play"", because you haven't executed such a step.

I find that the endgame condition check is much more akin to "Are flying pigs extinct?". A positive answer requires that:

1. at least one flying pig has ever lived; and
2. every flying pig that ever lived is now dead.

It's simply not enough to answer "Well, there are no flying pigs alive today, so yes."

In any case, I really must refer back to the green bit in my previous post. I think this gives an extremely clear indication of how the sentence must be interpreted. The possibility of no ships being deployed is explicitly acknowledged, and the consequence indicated.

Also, bear in mind what our woolly friend pointed out: in the original core set, the Hyperspace Assault objective would simply not be playable by Imperials if deploying zero ships were an auto-loss (you could choose the card, but never use it). That would be extremely odd - especially since no warning is given in any of the rules, including the Learn to Play booklet. Not proof of anything, of course, but it does add to the evidence.

5 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

I find that the endgame condition check is much more akin to "Are flying pigs extinct?". A positive answer requires that:

1. at least one flying pig has ever lived; and
2. every flying pig that ever lived is now dead.

It's simply not enough to answer "Well, there are no flying pigs alive today, so yes."

And this is the moment of disagreement, as I don't believe this comparison to be correct, however I do understand your reasoning as well. For me personally the case is as clear cut as possible as far as RAW is concerned, however it is now up to individial TOs to rule on this Dodo bird if it ever hits a table.

I really enjoy how people just ignore precedence.

Then expect TOs to rule their own way.

I mean, why bother with Logic, then precedence anyway?

1. Deploying 0 ships was covered since the Core set.

HA's FAQ

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. [It doesn't say the game ends here]

Learn to Play

Then players secretly and simultaneously build 180 point fleets before setting up the game. [Perfectly possible with just 1 Victory]

RRG

Each player builds a fleet by choosing ships, squadrons, and upgrade cards whose total fleet point cost does not exceed the total agreed upon by the players. [The less points the less ships]

A fleet must have one flagship and cannot have more than one flagship. [It is not required to have more than one ship]

2. Having 0 ships during rounds 1 is covered too (actually it is forced if all your ships are set aside)

HA's text

At the start of any round after the first round, the second player can deploy the ship and squadrons that he set aside at distance 1 of 1 objective token.

3. We can assume that the others rounds are not different but yes, it is an assumption.

4. The game ends whenever one of these conditions is met.

- After six rounds.

RRG

The game ends after six rounds. The players determine their scores and the player with the highest score wins.

- If all ships of a fleet or of both fleets are destroyed.

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.

If the last remaining ships in both fleets are destroyed at the same time, the player with the highest score wins. If both players have the same score, the second player wins.

5. Being set aside doesn't mean being destroyed.

RRG

A ship is destroyed when it has damage cards equaling or exceeding its hull value .

Additionally, a ship or squadron is destroyed if a portion of its base is outside the play area. [Being set aside cannot achieve this condition or HA has no sense at all]

6. All this means that this condition will never be met until at least one ship was deployed.

HA's 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.

7. Also, the other situation won't be covered until the end of the game.

If the game goes to time, or the end of the sixth round, his ships and squadrons that are set aside are destroyed.

8. At the end, set aside stuff is not destroyed until one of the "default" end-game condition is met. See point 4. We can also add running out of time in tournament environment as another end-game condition and is covered by HA's FAQ actually. However, set aside stuff cannot help, per se, to achieve any of those conditions.

I won't argue how much sense it has or if it is good or bad for the game. The fact is that not deploying ships is covered. And not having ships at the end of a round is also covered. If any of those things would mean you would lose the game it would be written that way in the HA's FAQ. I think. That's RAW as far as I can understand how it works.

The problem is that that FAQ entry is just not very rigorously written and leads to a nonsensical test.

If all of a player’s ships in the play area are destroyed

When a ship is destroyed, it is removed from the play area. So you will NEVER have a destroyed ship in the play area (Rieekan aside).

That said, as someone pointed out way back in the thread: from a strict logical standpoint, if there are no ships in the play area, then it is true that every ship in the play area is destroyed, fulfilling the condition for ending the game.

It is irrelevant that the inverse, "none of the player's ships in the play area have been destroyed," is also, simultaneously true, because not fulfilling the inverse statement is not required for ending the game--only fulfilling the affirmative requirement.

So, by the strictest reading of RAW, the zero-ship Raddus Bomb ends the game immediately.

Whether it should or not is another question. I think it's an entirely legitimate and thematic approach to the game, though it does admittedly break down if somebody uses it to castle up for points-denial.

Won't somebody please think of the children green point ?

The rules tell you exactly what to do if you deploy 0 ships: you cannot deploy squadrons, and any squadrons not set aside are immediately destroyed:

On 31/08/2017 at 9:23 AM, DiabloAzul said:

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. [...]

How can one possibly read that as meaning "your entire fleet is immediately destroyed and the game ends"?

(Please note that I am most definitely not conceding the point about how to interpret the endgame condition - I just wish to emphasise that this other point, which I find the most crucial of all , has not been addressed by anyone on the "no bomb" camp.)

2 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

The problem is that that FAQ entry is just not very rigorously written and leads to a nonsensical test.

If all of a player’s ships in the play area are destroyed

When a ship is destroyed, it is removed from the play area. So you will NEVER have a destroyed ship in the play area (Rieekan aside).

That destroyed is not an adjective. It is part of a passive voice .

The condition is not looking for destroyed ships rather than for the destruction of the ships . It doesn't add by whoever (which is not required by he construction) cause there are several things that can destroy the ship or through which the ships are destroyed . That's the purpose of the passive voice:

Passive voice is used when the focus is on the action. It is not important or not known , however, who or what is performing the action.

Just now, ovinomanc3r said:

That destroyed is not an adjective. It is part of a passive voice .

The condition is not looking for destroyed ships rather than for the destruction of the ships . It doesn't add by whoever (which is not required by he construction) cause there are several things that can destroy the ship or through which the ships are destroyed . That's the purpose of the passive voice:

Passive voice is used when the focus is on the action. It is not important or not known , however, who or what is performing the action.

It could just as easily be being used as a past participial adjective or as a stative passive here, but that's irrelevant to interpreting the meaning.

Let's assume it is passive. The question " have all of the ships in the play area been destroyed (by whatever mechanism) ? " is equivalent to " do all of the ships in the play area possess the 'destroyed' quality? ". The answer to both is that, because there are no ships in the play area , the result is both True and False. And it only needs to be True to end the game. Which it is.

1 hour ago, DiabloAzul said:

The rules tell you exactly what to do if you deploy 0 ships: you cannot deploy squadrons, and any squadrons not set aside are immediately destroyed:

How can one possibly read that as meaning "your entire fleet is immediately destroyed and the game ends"?

I agree that this is a strong counter-argument from an intent interpretation perspective, which is why I wouldn't call anyone unreasonable for going with that interpretation. The tipping point for me personally is this:

The rules can remain internally consistent with the No-Bomb interpretation I've laid out, because your quote does not explicitly specify that the game does not end .*

They cannot do so with the Pro-Bomb interpretation, because it would directly contravene the condition above.

*Yes, the context implies it, but it is not explicit . And I will take explicit over implicit every time.

48 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

It could just as easily be being used as a past participial adjective or as a stative passive here, but that's irrelevant to interpreting the meaning.

Let's assume it is passive. The question " have all of the ships in the play area been destroyed (by whatever mechanism) ? " is equivalent to " do all of the ships in the play area possess the 'destroyed' quality? ". The answer to both is that, because there are no ships in the play area , the result is both True and False. And it only needs to be True to end the game. Which it is.

As long as being destroyed MEANS being removed from the play area the answer is simply yes .

When asking about if something changed his state it cannot be otherwise.

If not we couldn't ask any question about if something that accomplish one condition changed its condition to another one?

Are all the trees burnt to ashes?

I would say that it could be answered with a clear "yes they are".

It could be asked as "were all the trees burnt to ashes?" And someone fussy would say this way is quite clear and coherent . But the differences are, in fact, emphatic. The last question focuses on what happened (the trees burnt and turned to ashes). The first one focuses on the result (the trees are not trees anymore).

Have the people in the parliament been taken home? yes of course!

Have the ships in the play area been removed from the play area?

See that what you say that are equivalent they are not.

2 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

The question " have all of the ships in the play area been destroyed (by whatever mechanism) ? " is equivalent to " do all of the ships in the play area possess the 'destroyed' quality? ".

A ship in play can be destroyed and due to that leave the play area. However a ship cannot be in the play area and, at the same time, qualify as destroyed.

In fact they way you intend are destroyed is the key to interpreting the meaning of the sentence. If you take destroyed as an adjective there, then you are asking about a quality that is not compatible with being in the play area. If you read it as a passive voice you are asking about an action that could be performed on ships in the play area cause what it does is to remove them from there. It doesn't mean that destroyed couldn't be a quality in the game at the same time, it just means it is not in that sentence. In Spanish this is easier cause "to be" means "ser" y "estar" and both have different uses.

TL;DR

If all the ships in the play area are destroyed can be read in two ways:

1) if all the ships in the play area are no longer in play.

2) if you remove all the ships in the play area from the play area.

Which one can be openly answered in order to check if the game ended?

ALSO if we don't want to mess with language:

A ship is destroyed when it has damage cards equaling or exceeding its hull value. [...] Additionally, a ship or squadron is destroyed if a portion of its base is outside the play area.

So

"If all of a player's ships in the play area have damage card equaling or exceeding its hull value OR if a portion of its base is outside the play area, his ships and squadrons that are set aside are also destroyed."

Have all the ships in play damage card equaling or exceding its hull value? Yes? Whatever is set aside is also destroyed then.

23 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Have all the ships in play damage card equaling or exceding its hull value? Yes? Whatever is set aside is also destroyed then.

Bingo! If all ships are set aside, then YES! All ships in the play area do have damage cards equaling or exceeding their hull value.

5 minutes ago, PT106 said:

Bingo! If all ships are set aside, then YES! All ships in the play area do have damage cards equaling or exceeding their hull value.

Still divide by 0 logic

If you push that through to conclusions:

All ships in Hyperspace assault even if there are other ships in play are destroyed because a portion of their base (100%) is outside the play area.

All Squadrons in Rapid Launch Bays are destroyed because a portion of their base (100%) is outside of the play area.

It doesn't respect things to treat the TRUE/FALSE -> TRUE UNLESS FALSE . The rules aren't going to give us a specific "aha!" either way on the matter. Intent will have to be taken into it (if you wish to ignore precedence, or state precedence as a form of intent)

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Still divide by 0 logic

That is true, but in formal logic, this particular kind of division by zero is defined by convention as True.

13 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

That is true, but in formal logic, this particular kind of division by zero is defined by convention as True.

And as much as I'd love to be able to do that, we can't accept formal logic, because formal logic, as demonstrated in this instance, opens other game statements to breaking.

I'm all for defined and formal logic, but it doesn't resolve all of the issues.

And I mean, you'll notice I've not once used the term "common sense".

Because there's nothing common about making any sense out of this stuff...

... I really do feel the only way we'll get a resolution that even comes close to satisfying is regrettably having to look at precedence.

I want my Rapid Launch Bays to work, after all.

28 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

And as much as I'd love to be able to do that, we can't accept formal logic, because formal logic, as demonstrated in this instance, opens other game statements to breaking.

I'm all for defined and formal logic, but it doesn't resolve all of the issues.

No, it doesn't. As I pointed out to DA, though, neither interpretation does. No-Bomb just introduces fewer goes than Pro-Bomb.

I think this is just one of those ones that will require a ruling from The Man one way or the other. In the meantime, 1) talk to your TO if you plan to shenaniganize this intensely at a tournament, and 2) I wouldn't fault a TO for ruling either way on it.

Just now, Ardaedhel said:

No, it doesn't. As I pointed out to DA, though, neither interpretation does. No-Bomb just introduces fewer goes than Pro-Bomb.

I think this is just one of those ones that will require a ruling from The Man one way or the other. In the meantime, 1) talk to your TO if you plan to shenaniganize this intensely at a tournament, and 2) I wouldn't fault a TO for ruling either way on it.

For Pro-Bomb, Is it just rectifying that destroyed line, or is it something else as well?

I mean, No-Bomb (at least in regards to everything in hiding) attempts to rectify the destroyed (tabling) statement as true, but breaks Hyperspace Assault, Rapid Launch, and in fact, any "off the board" or "set aside" state.

But I mean, I honestly thought there was fewer with the pro bomb, in regards to can I even do it in the first place.. . But I have a history of getting fixated, so this is a legitimate "help me out for seeing the forest" moment, if you don't mind

Is it then that it creates the secondary question of can you deploy everything at once, or is it one thing deployed at the start of each start of round at a time?

Or again, something else on that?

What am I missing?

30 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I want my Rapid Launch Bays to work, after all.

I don't see how you're tying RLB to the Pro-Bomb interpretation. "A ship or squadron is destroyed if a portion of its base is outside the play area" is obviously Golden Ruled by HA/RLB, and I don't see how it's related to this other than somebody brought it up here...

1 minute ago, Ardaedhel said:

I don't see how you're tying RLB to the Pro-Bomb interpretation. "A ship or squadron is destroyed if a portion of its base is outside the play area" is obviously Golden Ruled by HA/RLB, and I don't see how it's related to this other than somebody brought it up here...

Its in regard to taking the 'strict interpretation' point.

I will admit, I was not aware that in divide by 0 contentions, proper logic dictates a true. New learning for me.

But even given that, if those are essentially golden ruled by HA/RLB - wouldn't Raddus also Golden Rule override the effect too - because it provides a contradiction by not stating the missing parameter that we need FFG to give us ("is never deployed a state of destroyed?")

8 hours ago, PT106 said:

Bingo! If all ships are set aside, then YES! All ships in the play area do have damage cards equaling or exceeding their hull value.

What is the logic behind that.

I saw explaining rules with mathematical concepts before and I think that it is fine if it clarifies the issue but rules are not maths. Rules are laws and laws are language. They are more tight than common speaking but it refers to the reality. Maths works with abstraction as soon as you remove apples behind 2. Maths has its own rules and too many times has nothing to do with real stuff.

"If there is not ships in he play area" is not the same that "all the ships in the play area are full of damage card." As "if there is not people in the room" doesn't mean that "all the people is dead" or "all the people leave the room" if it never was anyone inside.

If you didn't know your answer must be "maybe" or "I don't know" but never "sure!". But in this case you do know. It is not just common sense. It is something that can be proved. Does any ship deploy into he play area? No. So it was never a ship in the play area right? Right. Can a ship that is not in the play area suffer damage card? No. How many damage card are in the damage deck? 52. Are damage cards in the discard pile? No. So never ever a ship in the play area had damage card equaling or exceding damage card right? Right. Thanks.

You could ask about moving out of the play area. Does any ship deploy into the play area? No. Does any ship deploy partially outside of the play area? That's not legal. Answer the question please! No. Can a ship that is not in the play area move from the play area to outside? Obviously no. So never ever a ship in the play area moved outside right? Right.

It is as easy as this: in order to be full of damage card or move outside the play area a ship in the play area is needed. As DA said before if something never existed it cannot die and you cannot say about it that is dead. At the same time it is not alive and it is not inmortal. In order to get those qualifiers you need the first of all: exist.

TL;DR

8 hours ago, PT106 said:

Bingo! If all ships are set aside, then YES! All ships in the play area do have damage cards equaling or exceeding their hull value.

That's a fallacy. 0 ships is not a number of ships so as long as 0 ships "are" full of damage cards all do. It is the absence of ships so as long as there is no ships they cannot be full of damage cards.

That's one of many differences between maths and reality. We cannot add nothing to something. Or in this case Nothingness cannot have qualifiers.

NOTE: language is another abstraction like maths and is able to do similar things (like politicians and lobbies do) but it has not, definitely, the same power. And this kind of incoherences are easier to identify as lies. That happens cause language is at the end linked with the reality while Maths are not. When you translate maths to reality you will find that 4÷2 is not the same that 8÷4.

I was thinkng about trying Raddus out. When do you set the dials? As normal? Or when you deploy?

12 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

I was thinkng about trying Raddus out. When do you set the dials? As normal? Or when you deploy?

Think hyper assault thoughts.

Follow the steps carefully and it should make sense. Explicitly:

Raddus:

At the start of any round , you may deploy that ship at distance 1 of a friendly ship.

RRG pg 9 ROUND:

A single game round consists of four phases resolved in the following order: Command Phase , Ship Phase, Squadron Phase, and Status Phase.

RRG pg 3 COMMAND PHASE:

During this phase, players secretly and simultaneously choose commands on their command dials and assign them facedown to their ships.
• A ship must be assigned command dials until it has a number of command dials equal to its command value. This may require that more than one dial be assigned to a ship, such as during the first round of the game.

So, you deploy the ship before anything else in the round happens. Then you do the command phase, in which you assign dials to each of your ships until they reach their command values. Usually that's only one dial; on the Raddus ship, it's <command value>.

I am not sure I ever saw this case so I asked to the global community:

How people played Garm Bel with HA? Does the case ever came up during a tourney?

I would ask about Tagge too but we know everyone ever played him

Also: does a card's FAQ count as that card effect for purpose like the golden rule?

2 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

How people played Garm Bel with HA? Does the case ever came up during a tourney?

Also: does a card's FAQ count as that card effect for purpose like the golden rule?

If the Admiral is not on the board, it does not resolve.

Ergo, if there is a ship in Hyperspace assault, it does not gain any tokens from Garm.
If Garm himself is in Hyperspace assault, no ship gains Garm tokens turn one...

- In the same way that if Motti himself is in Hyperspace assault, none of his friendly ships have additional Hull.

As for FAQ. Its basically a Yes.

FAQs have two components:

Errata are actual changes and modifications to the wording of the upgrade. Because they actually, officially change the wording on the card, the new wording must still be viewed as conforming to the golden rules.

FAQ components otherwise, as just advice on how to interpret or resolve, and also must be viewed in regards to the golden rules...

58 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

If the Admiral is not on the board, it does not resolve.

Ergo, if there is a ship in Hyperspace assault, it does not gain any tokens from Garm.
If Garm himself is in Hyperspace assault, no ship gains Garm tokens turn one...

- In the same way that if Motti himself is in Hyperspace assault, none of his friendly ships have additional Hull.

I knew this. I asked cause the timing is the same involved on Raddus Bomb. Sorry not being more specific.

58 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

As for FAQ. Its basically a Yes.

FAQs have two components:

Errata are actual changes and modifications to the wording of the upgrade. Because they actually, officially change the wording on the card, the new wording must still be viewed as conforming to the golden rules.

FAQ components otherwise, as just advice on how to interpret or resolve, and also must be viewed in regards to the golden rules...

How that would interact with the first paragraph of HA's FAQ?

That FAQ state that stuff set aside CANNOT be affected by effects what would be contradictory with the card that actually set aside stuff. Of course we have to agree that they are inmune to OTHER effects cause it wouldn't work if not. I just noticed the incoherence there. Or maybe I understood something wrong.