Hello, it's your friendly, neighbourhood pariah here!

Having looked at another thread, I now concede that (unless they are being inconsistent), FFG's definition of a "card effect" is simply the entirety of wording on the card and not necessarily the English meaning of effect, i.e. "a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause." As Drasnighta has said, it would be helpful if FFG explicitly stated that, since "effect" is a much used term in the rules.

Although there is a great deal more I would like to say in response to some of the posts that were made, I will leave it at that. However I do reserve the right to reply.

So because Bail is "set aside",

On 1/26/2018 at 10:05 AM, OlaphOfTheNorth said:

From a rules perspective, the situations are identical. Relevant passages from the FAQ attached.

Once any game element is set aside it ceases to exist until called upon by another game rule that refers to it, which is why, if I kill your raddus, you can never deploy your hyperspace liberty- it isn’t in play.

TAiken together, these passages mean you can’t use Bail how you want- when set aside, he stops being in play, so can’t gain a token. When returned, he can only resolve abilities that align with the timing window of his return.

Bail needs to be "active" for you to place a token on the the card?

When I think of active I think of Ackbar's ship needing to be deployed for his ability to be active, thus allowing him to confer his ability on other ships.

When I think of active I think of Reeikan's ship needing to be deployed for his ability to be active, thus allowing him to confer his ability on other ships.

Bail's ability is dormant, meaning it does not occur until the beginning of the round matching his token. Placing the token seems to be simply a procedural matter, and a precondition to you using his ability. As his ability cannot, by the very text of his card, become active until the start the round corresponding with the matching token, I do not see why the "set aside" FAQ would prevent you from placing his token.

It's hard to glean intent, I know, but after digesting everyone's arguments, I'm still having difficulty understanding how this FAQ is applicable to the act of placing the token. Can someone expound on how placing the token is an "effect" requiring the upgrade card to be "active" (i.e. on the board)?

FFG uses “effect” to mean”all card text.”

More broadly, though, why would you be able to use any part of a card that isn’t “active (ie on the board)?” Should I designate hull zones to receive flak tokens for an Early Warning Sysrem that’s not on the board? After all, it’s effect of obstructing an attack is dormant until something targets the hull zone in question, and placing the flak token is just the procedural precursor to obstructing the attack.

Also, the interpretation holding that you cannot place the token on Bail if he is set aside (e.g. with Raddus) destroys the lovely synergy that Bail might otherwise have with Raddus. If FFG wants us to be able to get the most out of Bail (and Raddus for that matter), they might want to consider an FAQ that allows you to place the token on Bail when he is set aside (assuming the rules actually preclude him you from placing one in that situation). That would allow players to do cool stuff, like launch a hyperspace assault WITH initiative. Should that not be a desired result from these rule interactions, convoluted as they may be?

5 minutes ago, OlaphOfTheNorth said:

FFG uses “effect” to mean”all card text.”

Is that in the rules reference, or somewhere else?

Just now, Warlord Zepnick said:

Also, the interpretation holding that you cannot place the token on Bail if he is set aside (e.g. with Raddus) destroys the lovely synergy that Bail might otherwise have with Raddus. If FFG wants us to be able to get the most out of Bail, they might want to consider an FAQ that allows you to place the token on Bail when he is set aside (assuming the rules actually preclude him in that situation). That would allow players to use Corvettes with engine techs on tight schedule, to get to another ship/area of the board on a certain round (designated with Bail), and then unleash a critical first activation hyperspace assault. It would be incredibly fun.

I see where you are standing, but a point of order:

No... FAQ Precedents of breaking written rules “because we can” is.... not in the games best interest.

If that is going to happen, it MUST be errata to make it unequivocally and indisputably so.

This is NOT a “grey area” of wording.

Just now, Warlord Zepnick said:

Is that in the rules reference, or somewhere else?

Upgrade cards are only referred to as having effects, basically.

in fact, it’s hard to argue they have anything BUT effects! ?

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Upgrade cards are only referred to as having effects, basically.

in fact, it’s hard to argue they have anything BUT effects! ?

The act of placing the token is clearly designed to designate when Bail, the upgrade card, is supposed to take "effect". The "effect" of Bail is either you 1) must activate first if you are the second player on the round matching the token, or 2) if you are the first player, you gain gain two command tokens of your choice.

It is incorrect to assume that the act of placing the token is an "effect".

Once Bail gets onto the Board, via Raddus, then he can resolve either of those two effects.

Edit:

Bail cannot activate first with Raddus, but he can under the Hyperspace Assault scenario.

32 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Also, the interpretation holding that you cannot place the token on Bail if he is set aside (e.g. with Raddus) destroys the lovely synergy that Bail might otherwise have with Raddus. If FFG wants us to be able to get the most out of Bail (and Raddus for that matter), they might want to consider an FAQ that allows you to place the token on Bail when he is set aside (assuming the rules actually preclude him you from placing one in that situation). That would allow players to do cool stuff, like launch a hyperspace assault WITH initiative. Should that not be a desired result from these rule interactions, convoluted as they may be?

Then I want one to allow Chimaera on a Cymoon you know, if FFG want us to get the most out of Chimaera.

2 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

The act of placing the token is clearly designed to designate when Bail, the upgrade card, is supposed to take "effect". The "effect" of Bail is either you 1) must activate first if you are the second player on the round matching the token, or 2) if you are the first player, you gain gain two command tokens of your choice.

It is incorrect to assume that the act of placing the token is an "effect".

You start to resolve Bail placing a token after deploying. And end it activating first/gaining tokens at the start of the matching round.

Just like DTT start adding a red die and end removing a die. That's all.

8 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

You start to resolve Bail placing a token after deploying. And end it activating first/gaining tokens at the start of the matching round.

Just like DTT start adding a red die and end removing a die. That's all.

DTT is wholly irrelevant to what I'm talking about here. The "set aside" preclusionary language set forth in the FAQ cited by @OlaphOfTheNorth applies to the actual "effect" of the card. The act of placing the token on Bail is not the card's actual effect. Thus the FAQ does not preclude you from placing the token after Bail has been set aside.

Just now, Warlord Zepnick said:

DTT is wholly irrelevant to what I'm talking about here. The "set aside" preclusionary language set forth in the FAQ cited by @OlaphOfTheNorth applies to the actual "effect" of the card. The act of placing the token on Bail is not the card's actual effect.

How not?

1 minute ago, ovinomanc3r said:

How not?

Because I don't have to place a token on DTT before I want to use its effect later.

Just now, Warlord Zepnick said:

Because I don't have to place a token on DTT before I want to use its effect later.

I mean how placing a token is not an effect from Bail.

Just now, ovinomanc3r said:

I mean how placing a token is not an effect from Bail.

I am still waiting on someone to tell me how it is an effect, as the so-called majority's interpretation rests upon the false assumption that it is an effect, and not one single person in this thread has provided support in connection with said assumption.

51 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

That would allow players to do cool stuff, like launch a hyperspace assault WITH initiative. Should that not be a desired result from these rule interactions, convoluted as they may be?

Also not possible. CANNOT wins.

1 minute ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

I am still waiting on someone to tell me how it is an effect, as the so-called majority's interpretation rests upon the false assumption that it is an effect, and not one single person in this thread has provided support in connection with said assumption.

Hmm I don't know, maybe that AFTER what is a defined and also generally used timing for upgrade effects.

2 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Also not possible. CANNOT wins.

Sucks, but I can still do it with the Objective, hyperspace assault.

On 1/27/2018 at 8:13 AM, DiabloAzul said:

As far as I'm concerned, "placing a token" is clearly an effect

Amazing. Every word of what you just said.. was wrong.

48 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

I am still waiting on someone to tell me how it is an effect, as the so-called majority's interpretation rests upon the false assumption that it is an effect, and not one single person in this thread has provided support in connection with said assumption.

Sorry, the onus is on you to show it is not one - or at least, that cards cannot have MULTIPLE effects...

1 hour ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Bail needs to be "active" for you to place a token on the the card?

I think this is the wrong emphasis. If there was a different component in play allowing you to put that token on the inactive, set-aside card--a hypothetical upgrade that said "after the setup phase you may place a round counter token on an upgrade card", for instance--that might be a gray area. Can you put a token on an inactive card? Probably not, but certainly debatable.

The issue here is distinct from that, though. The trigger that is allowing you to place a token on Bail in the first place is the text on the Bail card: "After deploying fleets, you may place 1 round token on this card." Whether you call it an "effect" or not, that text on the card is the only mechanic that's granting you permission to put the token on that card. If that card is not active, that text is not play, so there is nothing in play granting you permission to put a token on the card in the first place.

The question doesn't even get to the point of asking "okay, I've been permitted to place a token on a card, but that card is inactive, can I still place that token on that card?". The interaction is derailed at the point of "okay, I go to do what this card says, but that card is inactive, can I still do what the card says?".

Just now, Drasnighta said:

Sorry, the onus is on you to show it is not one - or at least, that cards cannot have MULTIPLE effects...

No, it's not.

Just now, Warlord Zepnick said:

No, it's not.

The etiquette of Polite Discussion says otherwise.

You are, of course, welcome to engage in something other than polite discourse, but I will do the same. ?

3 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

The etiquette of Polite Discussion says otherwise.

You are, of course, welcome to engage in something other than polite discourse, but I will do the same. ?

Again, in order to reach your conclusion, you have to make the false assumption that placing the token is an effect (so that the "set aside" FAQ is applicable). The onus lies with the proponent of that argument because it is predicated upon that assumption.

1 minute ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Again, in order to reach your conclusion, you have to make the false assumption that placing a token is an effect (so that the "set aside" FAQ is applicable). The onus lies with the proponent of the argument because it is predicated upon that assumption.

Page 21 of the learn to play essentially describes the anatomy of an upgrade card.

As the wording is not a cost, trait, faction icon or unique identifier - the only thing remaining for it to be is an effect.

To state otherwise, is to assume there is NO SUCH THING as a card effect AT ALL and no upgrade card works.