My vote:
" Y ou " on Strat Ad refers to player
AND
Strat Ad may be used prior to ANY activation, not just attached ship, so long as the ship is in play and even if Strat Ad's ship has already activated.

I think the point of the card is to combat MSU / Activation creep, not merely provide a buff to allow large ships to sometimes activate later. But that's my perspective.

6 hours ago, Lord Tareq said:

Makes this card pretty amazing for 4 points doesn't it?

I agree with you and I can see the value in running a double ISD Christmas Tree list with an additional Gozanti.

With those three ships, and an adviser on each ISD, you could force your opponent to activate four ships to your one gozanti, assuming you are the second player. The officer slot is highly valued, and I would have no problem taking two advisers over say, two intel officers.

This allows ISDs to line up better shots against higher priority targers in lower activation lists. These cards represent FFG attempting to remedy the "activation" issue the game has been having for a while now.

You can only take 1 adviser, its a unique card unfortunately.

8 minutes ago, Lord Tareq said:

You can only take 1 adviser, its a unique card unfortunately.

Good catch. That's unfortunate. Well, still a 3:1 activation ratio is not bad

7 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

I think maybe you don't understand my point? Because I didn't say anything about a ship having to be activated to trigger an upgrade card equipped to it in the general case.

In the case of this particular card, it is triggered when "it is your turn to activate." If the "your" referred to the ship, and the error on the card had been calling a ship activation a "turn to activate," then this particular card would be triggered when I as the player point at the equipped ship and said "I'm activating you, BUT WAIT! not really." Which you can only do with an unactivated ship.

However, because the error is instead that "your" is being used to refer to the player, that triggering condition happens every time the turn is swapped, obviating the need to have the equipped ship unactivated to trigger SA.

Also, you can stop trying to convince me on the interpretation of the card. I conceded the question above when somebody pointed out that Bail has the same error, changing it from a 50-50 on where the error was to being much more likely that the error is in the use of "your."

I asked you a question about what you saw as a big change for OE, and you answered.

Hence my "I see what you mean, and understand your point." in response to your answer about OE.

And while I am talking to you, there are more than you reading this thread, I'm not trying to convince you personally, you know ...we're not exchanging PM's here.

I really cannot see how this could cause a discussion (or even cause questions) at all.
Maybe i am missing something....

As i posted in the Chimaera unboxing already:

If you cannot use the Strategic Advisor when the ship is activated, how can you activate an ECM on a ship that already activated?
(I know that you think you have to use this card when you are about to activate the ship with this card, but this would be stupid with this wording)

It does not matter if a ship activated or not when it comes to upgrade cards that trigger outside of your activation. And this card does trigger before you activate a ship. It really does not matter if the ship with this card already activated or not. You can still use it (imo).

A you as ship cannot be as well, because this card trigger when it is your turn to activate a ship, you have not activated a ship so far. So if this your on the card would mean the ship, it would be pointless when you can only use it after you activated the ship and pass right after it. You would just waste 4 points for nothing.
And if this card could only be used when you are about to activate the ship with this card the wording would have been different (something like: If you want to activate this ship, you may instead exhaust this card and pass the activation)

It is a little bad wording, because the your does not mean the ship in this case. It really means you as player. If it would mean the ship, the card would never work. Because it is not the ship that is activating ships, it is you as player.

For me this card is total clear. And unless the dev team was totally stoned when they wrote it, it is just a card that can be used at any time when the trigger is given (if is your "the player" turn to activate a ship).

This is another case where the English language/ grammer doesnt have the words or the clarification of words that a game system requires. Just like the whole attack /attack saga (or as @Drasnighta suggests it should be attack /salvo)

Example in French they could have made the female you mean ships, and the male mean the player... no language / grammer related issue in seperation of the two yous.

double post sorry!

Ok thats not good... hit submit post and it didnt close the reply box... so tripple posted!

5 minutes ago, slasher956 said:

This is another case where the English language/ grammer doesnt have the words or the clarification of words that a game system requires. Just like the whole attack /attack saga (or as @Drasnighta suggests it should be attack /salvo)

Example in French they could have made the female you mean ships, and the male mean the player... no language / grammer related issue in seperation of the two yous.

Strategic Advisor is easy enough to fix: "When it is your side's turn to activate ..."

Minister Tua should have been written in passive voice ("But they taught us never to write in passive voice!): "This card cannot be equipped to ..."

Bail Organa is fixable, but there's so much text on the card that it may not be possible to make clarified text fit.

Each time I read the card, it come to the same explanation for me : even if it's your ship or you (as a player) , you will have the same result. The card is exhaust, at the moment you where supposed to activate a ship (or the ship with the SA upgrade). The turn is pass to your opponent. He made is activation and it's back to you and play one of your ship. The one with the SA upgrade or an other.

I'll go with a exemple : Your opponent have a CR90A, a CR-90B, a Hammeread and MC-80 and he's the first player. You, you have a Gozanti, a GSD and a ISD and the second player.

He activate is CR90-A, you activate your Gozanti. He activate is CR-90B, you activate your GSD. He activate is Hammeread and you want him to move is MC-80 before your ISD (because of the range or any other reasons), so you exhaust your SA. So your opponent must activate is MC-80 and finally you activate your ISD.

What is the difference between :

1, If SA should affect only the ship equipped with SA . You could decide to use your ISD instead of the Gozanti at the start and pass and be able to activate your ISD later (when you really want him to activate at the end of the turn) or...

2, If the card can be used by any ship of your fleet, (used by '' you ''). So you could activate your Gozanti and decide to pass.

The result will be the same. The card is just telling you that, before you activate, exhaust this card and pass your turn. Just like some other upgrade cards that activate without the need of a ship activation. The only timming reference is when is your turn to activate ).

Sometimes, I think people are trying too hard to find some other meaning of a card for some personnel reasons or for a combo that nobody had tougth.

It's a turn pass card, equiped only on large ship. So can't be use by MSU. And maybe it's a little buff against them. Nothing more.

22 hours ago, slasher956 said:

This is another case where the English language/ grammer doesnt have the words or the clarification of words that a game system requires. Just like the whole attack /attack saga (or as @Drasnighta suggests it should be attack /salvo)

Example in French they could have made the female you mean ships, and the male mean the player... no language / grammer related issue in seperation of the two yous.

I disagree. It is not a problem with English. It is a problem the writer has created with imprecise wording in the rules as a whole, creating uncertainty as to what is meant. And this is a problem that pervades wargaming, because rules writers persist in using one word or phrase to mean more than one thing; in this case it is "you". It would have been better if "you" always referred to the player and "your ship/squadron/unit" always referred to the elements of the fleet.

BTW, in French a ship is un vaisseau (masculine), so it would be referred to as "he" - just as the player would.

7 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

BTW, in French a ship is un vaisseau (masculine), so it would be referred to as "he" - just as the player would.

Learn something new every day... I know a few nations use masculine terms for ships but not which ones

But on subject- the point is how do you distinguish between player and ship in this game on the cards? The trouble is the base language and (self imposed) size restrictions

Strategic Adviser upgrade card: "Large ship only. When it is your turn to activate, you may exhaust this card to pass your turn (your opponent activates a ship instead)."

As for the the meaning of the card, I think the wording "Large ship only" makes it quite clear that, in this case at least, the "you" implicit in "your turn to activate" is the ship on which the Strategic Adviser upgrade card is equipped. If it refered to the player, then it would allow him to pass an activation with any size of ship, which is obviously not what was intended.

1 hour ago, DOMSWAT911 said:

Each time I read the card, it come to the same explanation for me : even if it's your ship or you (as a player) , you will have the same result.

[...]

The result will be the same. The card is just telling you that, before you activate, exhaust this card and pass your turn. Just like some other upgrade cards that activate without the need of a ship activation. The only timming reference is when is your turn to activate ).

I think you're missing what's being discussed here. It's not the timing at all. It's whether, if the ship with StA has activated, StA can or cannot be used to pass the player's next (or subsequent) turn.

Example: Rebel player has a Liberty with StA, and an MC80. Imperial player has two ISDs.

Under green , this activation sequence is possible:

1. Liberty
2. ISD
3. pass
4. ISD
5. MC80

Under blue , the above would not be legal, because by the time the Rebel's second turn arrives, the Liberty cannot be chosen to be activated and therefore StA could not trigger.

So no, the result is not the same at all.

1 hour ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

As for the the meaning of the card, I think the wording "Large ship only" makes it quite clear that, in this case at least, the "you" implicit in "your turn to activate" is the ship on which the Strategic Adviser upgrade card is equipped. If it refered to the player, then it would allow him to pass an activation with any size of ship, which is obviously not what was intended.

And in bold is the problem! What is implicit for you is not the same for everyone.

Now I read "large only" as where I can put the card the same as a Ion upgrade or a title that says ISD only, or Tua's restrictions. The rules for what the card does and how are different. plus how do we know intent? We know intent for Thrawn as the card designer is on the forums and has answered that... but the rest, your guess is as good as mine on what the intent is.

The card does not say "Exhaust this card when you first activate this ship, but instead of carrying out the activation pass activation back to the next player. This ship may then be activated as normal later in the turn" which is how you are reading it. Nor does it say "When its the controlling players turn to activate a ship they may instead exhaust this card to pass activation to the next player without activating a ship" unfortunately

16 minutes ago, slasher956 said:

And in bold is the problem! What is implicit for you is not the same for everyone.

Now I read "large only" as where I can put the card the same as a Ion upgrade or a title that says ISD only, or Tua's restrictions. The rules for what the card does and how are different. plus how do we know intent? We know intent for Thrawn as the card designer is on the forums and has answered that... but the rest, your guess is as good as mine on what the intent is.

The card does not say "Exhaust this card when you first activate this ship, but instead of carrying out the activation pass activation back to the next player. This ship may then be activated as normal later in the turn" which is how you are reading it. Nor does it say "When its the controlling players turn to activate a ship they may instead exhaust this card to pass activation to the next player without activating a ship" unfortunately

I share your frustration.

All I would say in response is that for any interpretation that would allow a non-large ship to pass, the wording "Large ship only" would be rendered irrelevant.

1 hour ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

I share your frustration.

All I would say in response is that for any interpretation that would allow a non-large ship to pass, the wording "Large ship only" would be rendered irrelevant.

No, it's very relevant - the 'Large ship only' is the restriction on where you can equip the card not the target of the card. Otherwise Interdictors could exhaust this twice and MSU fleets would be able to use it.

Nowhere does it state that ships 'take turns' - only players take turns. The card simply allows you (the player) to skip your turn. That's it.

1 hour ago, Kendraam said:

No, it's very relevant - the 'Large ship only' is the restriction on where you can equip the card not the target of the card. Otherwise Interdictors could exhaust this twice and MSU fleets would be able to use it.

So then, with Hardened Bulkheads (another "Large ship only" upgrade card from the same release), is the "you" referring to the ship or the player? Should the two cards not be consistent?

1 hour ago, Kendraam said:

Nowhere does it state that ships 'take turns' - only players take turns. The card simply allows you (the player) to skip your turn...

And does it say anywhere that players activate?

1 hour ago, Kendraam said:

... That's it.

33 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

So then, with Hardened Bulkheads (another "Large ship only" upgrade card from the same release), is the "you" referring to the ship or the player? Should the two cards not be consistent?

And does it say anywhere that players activate?

That's the issue, hence why there is a thread in this forum, for clarification - the 'you' is now not consistent on many cards. Bail, for example, refers to the player as 'you' and the ship he is equipped to as 'you' in the same sentence.

Imho it is obvious how the card reads since players take turns not ships.

And it doesn't say anywhere that players activate...if you're referring to the card it says 'When it is your turn to activate...' it means When you the player would activate a ship, not when you the player is activated. As you say, players don't activate, ships do. It would otherwise state 'When you would activate...' or even better 'When this ship would activate...'

Why make this more complicated than it already is?

As I've stated before - it's a mechanism for you to skip a turn by exhausting the card, nothing more.

Trying to make this card make sense by insisting all the 'you's refer to the ship only causes more issues as none of it would work.

I fully accept I could be completely wrong and the card is just really badly worded, but Occam's Razor suggests it's as simple as it is stated.

35 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

So then, with Hardened Bulkheads (another "Large ship only" upgrade card from the same release), is the "you" referring to the ship or the player? Should the two cards not be consistent?

Again, no connection. "Large ship only" simply means "This card can only be equipped to large ships". It has no influence whatsoever on how the text is to be read or the effects therein resolved.

37 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

And does it say anywhere that players activate?

Yes. The rules (Ship Phase, p.11) are very clear: Players take turns activating ships. During a player's turn, he activates a ship. A player must pass his turn if he has no ships left to activate.

Ships do not take turns to activate themselves. Ships can "be activated", ships can "activate", ships get "activations". But ships don't get to take or pass "turns".

The expression "When it is your turn to activate, you may [...] pass your turn" could be resolved in two fundamental ways, both of which present some difficulties:

• "When it is [this ship's] turn to activate, [this ship] may pass [its] turn". This would be consistent with the "you means this ship" rule, but inconsistent with the "players take turns" rule, because ships don't have turns and cannot pass them.
• "When it is [this player's] turn to activate, [this player] may pass [his or her] turn." This is consistent with the turn mechanics, but inconsistent with the "you means this ship" rule.

So this is an issue of choosing which inconsistency should prevail over the other. The reason why I (and others) prefer the blue interpretation is that, as mentioned earlier in the thread, there are various precedents for "you" not meaning "this ship" when it refers to a non-ship function. Also because the final bit of the card says "your opponent activates a ship instead", which reinforces that you are performing (or rather skipping) a player function.

Now it would be quite different if the card said, for example, "Before you activate, you may [...] pass your turn." In this case, although the "you" in the second clause is still clearly player-related, the first one (which ultimately is the one that actually matters!) can be clearly traced back to the ship. So there would be no possible room for interpretation.

32 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

So this is an issue of choosing which inconsistency should prevail over the other. The reason why I (and others) prefer the blue interpretation is that, as mentioned earlier in the thread, there are various precedents for "you" not meaning "this ship" when it refers to a non-ship function. Also because the final bit of the card says "your opponent activates a ship instead", which reinforces that you are performing (or rather skipping) a player function.

Now it would be quite different if the card said, for example, "Before you activate, you may [...] pass your turn." In this case, although the "you" in the second clause is still clearly player-related, the first one (which ultimately is the one that actually matters!) can be clearly traced back to the ship. So there would be no possible room for interpretation.

Well at least we can agree that the rule writing is imprecise and inconsistent!

It will be interesting to see how TOs handle this.

2 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

Well at least we can agree that the writing is imprecise and inconsistent!

It will be interesting to see how TOs handle this.

Absolutely - on both counts!

@Drasnighta or @Green Knight , have you submitted / will you submit a question to FFG on this?

10 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

Absolutely - on both counts!

@Drasnighta or @Green Knight , have you submitted / will you submit a question to FFG on this?

Already done

26 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

The expression "When it is your turn to activate, you may [...] pass your turn" could be resolved in two fundamental ways, both of which present some difficulties:

• "When it is [this ship's] turn to activate, [this ship] may pass [its] turn". This would be consistent with the "you means this ship" rule, but inconsistent with the "players take turns" rule, because ships don't have turns and cannot pass them.
• "When it is [this player's] turn to activate, [this player] may pass [his or her] turn." This is consistent with the turn mechanics, but inconsistent with the "you means this ship" rule.

That's where I'm at on this and Slasher put it like this as well. I'm good with it either way but tend to think " blue " is better. I just want to know which way it is. They could have really worded the card better and avoided this.

I really think they're just trolling us sometimes.