3 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

YOU CANNOT DO ANYTHING UNLESS YOU ARE TOLD THE CONTRARY.

I still have not seen this addressed, even though I brought it up on page 1 and multiple people have said it different ways throughout the whole thread.

If you are not given permission to do something, you can't do it.

The only permission in the game for placing that round counter on Bail is on the Bail card.

That card is not in play. It is inactive. It cannot resolve effects.

How many more ways are there to say "it doesn't do anything"?

So, that being the case, where do you get permission to put the round counter on the card?

It has become an echo chamber in here. Is anyone willing to offer a different perspective, or add anything new?

@Green Knight? @Snipafist? @Crabbok? @Undeadguy? @PT106 even (have not spotted you in a while)?

Change comes from within.

4 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

It has become an echo chamber in here. Is anyone willing to offer a different perspective, or add anything new?

@Green Knight? @Snipafist? @Crabbok? @Undeadguy? @PT106 even (have not spotted you in a while)?

For what it's worth, I'm on Team @Drasnighta in most cases when rules are being discussed, and that remains true here. Bail doesn't work when he's set aside under the current ruleset. It's possible that may be altered later, of course, but for now that's how it is.

9 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

For what it's worth, I'm on Team @Drasnighta in most cases when rules are being discussed, and that remains true here. Bail doesn't work when he's set aside under the current ruleset. It's possible that may be altered later, of course, but for now that's how it is.

That's fair. Rules always need to be updated to adjust to the new Waves.

1 hour ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

It has become an echo chamber in here. Is anyone willing to offer a different perspective, or add anything new?

@Green Knight? @Snipafist? @Crabbok? @Undeadguy? @PT106 even (have not spotted you in a while)?

Well... for me personally the case is clear and I agree with @Drasnighta here based on RAW. As far as RAI goes, I don't feel that there can be a real argument (as opposed to a Jamming Field snafu for example)

Keep in mind that Bail could've easily been worded "even if you're set aside".

I prefer to use other FAQs as precedent, so I'd say Bail does not work if you set him aside in any manner. If Bail is not in play at the start of the first round, he does not trigger.

I did not read any thoughts in this thread, so I don't know where my opinion falls.

Welp. I tried my best. It is a sad day for Hyperspace Assault, indeed.

Yeah I'm going to go ahead and agree with Dras as well.

Cards that are set aside effectively don't exist, so can't trigger at the start of the game.

But here's another question - Can you select a non-deployed ship for Advanced Gunnery? Can Profunity warp in a Hammerhead that can fire twice, if your hammerhead is your objective ship?

Because the Advanced Gunnery objective card IS in play at the beginning.

Still I lean towards no... but it would be fun to do.

Assigning objective ships in Advanced Gunnery happens after deploying fleets. If the ship is set aside, it is out of play and can not be chosen.

If you could choose an "out-of-play" ship as an objective ship with the timing of "after deployment), then Most Wanted would be even more awesome. Choose a padding flotilla to set aside using Profundity...and then never bring it in.

To just extend this discussion a tiny bit...

A couple of folks now have said that the first part on the Bail Organa upgrade is not the effect and therefore could be executed even if the ship Bail is equipped to is set aside. They argue that the effect comes after that when he uses it; the placement of the token is just prepping for the effect that comes later.

Very well.

"Grand Moff Tarkin" allows you to, at the beginning of the Ship Phase, place a token on each friendly ship. If Tarkin is on a ship that is set aside, can I place the command tokens on all of my friendly ships? The presence of the token doesn't do anything until I actually use it, after all. It just signifies my ability to resolve an effect later. In fact, Tarkin's upgrade text doesn't really DO anything at the time other than place a token to signify my ability to resolve such a command later. So, by the definition of those arguing about the extent of Bail Organa's effect, Tarkin doesn't even HAVE an effect.

Clearly the placing of a command token IS an effect. It signifies your ability to resolve a command later. And that's something you can do only because the text on Tarkin's card changed the rules of the game a little.

Placing a round token on Bail's ship is, likewise, an effect. It signifies your ability to resolve the remainder of Bail Organa's effect later. That's something you can do only because the text on Bail's card changed the rules of the game a little.

Upgrade cards change the rules of the game. That is their effect. Anything that a card tells you that you can do is an effect. It doesn't have to be an immediate game effect if it has an effect on the rules of the game. If a card's effect doesn't consist of the entire text of the card (excluding title, modification, etc...), then it would be unclear which parts of the upgrade text are effects or not. That way lies madness. No wished-for, cool synergy is worth that degree of ambiguity.

Personally I would have liked the Bail and Pryce cards (and indeed any others, present or future, that set a player-definable trigger parameter) to read, "Before deploying fleets ...", not "After ..."

The reason is thematic; I think that, in universe, tactics/plans like this would have to be made in advance and would be difficult to change at the last minute, i.e. while deploying. Likewise thematically, I think the round token would be better placed under the card, to reflect the surprise nature of the tactic, only to be revealed when the effect is triggered.

In game, this would also have had the beneficial effect of avoiding conflict with the set aside rule, and IMO the cards would have been more interesting to use.

27 minutes ago, RobertK said:

"Grand Moff Tarkin" allows you to, at the beginning of the Ship Phase, place a token on each friendly ship. If Tarkin is on a ship that is set aside, can I place the command tokens on all of my friendly ships? The presence of the token doesn't do anything until I actually use it, after all. It just signifies my ability to resolve an effect later. In fact, Tarkin's upgrade text doesn't really DO anything at the time other than place a token to signify my ability to resolve such a command later. So, by the definition of those arguing about the extent of Bail Organa's effect, Tarkin doesn't even HAVE an effect.

Sorry, I don't agree with the statement that, "Tarkin doesn't even HAVE an effect." It seems to me that while he is in set aside limbo Tarkin cannot use his effect, but once he is in play (and no longer in set aside limbo) I cannot see any reason that he cannot use his effect. The card remains equipped after all. The difference between Bail and Tarkin is that the Bail card requires a preparatory step in order for the effect to function (that cannot be made and therefore invalidates the effect) while Tarkin's does not - which means the set aside rule only temporarily affects Tarkin, whilst it affects Bail for the whole game. Indeed if Tarkin's effect does not survive after emerging from set aside limbo, then those of other equipped upgrade cards do not either.

Is this not the case?

I see what you are trying to say. I reject your definition of effect because it is ambiguous. To reiterate. I understand your point. Fully. I think it isn't one that should be accepted since, if it were a general rule, it would make upgrades ambiguous.

I think you are missing my point. Every upgrade card changes the rules of the game. THAT is their effect. There is no "preparatory step". Every last word that describes what you can do because of the presence of that upgrade card IS the effect. The effect is: "the rules of the game are different now...here's how!" You can't filter out some of that text simply because it doesn't have an immediate game effect. If so, Tarkin's placement of command tokens would be allowed from a ship that was set aside because those tokens, like Bail's round tokens, have no immediate game effect either (by the way, Tarkin also doesn't work while set aside!) This is why Ginkapo's question about placing a round token on Jaina's Light was pertinent. You need a rule to tell you that you can do that.

In other words: Why do you say that Tarkin placing a token on a ship is an effect while Bail placing a token on a ship is NOT an effect. That is inconsistent.

4 minutes ago, RobertK said:

I see what you are trying to say. I reject your definition of effect because it is ambiguous. To reiterate. I understand your point. Fully. I think it isn't one that should be accepted since, if it were a general rule, it would make upgrades ambiguous.

I think you are missing my point. Every upgrade card changes the rules of the game. THAT is their effect. There is no "preparatory step". Every last word that describes what you can do because of the presence of that upgrade card IS the effect. The effect is: "the rules of the game are different now...here's how!" You can't filter out some of that text simply because it doesn't have an immediate game effect. If so, Tarkin's placement of command tokens would be allowed from a ship that was set aside because those tokens, like Bail's round tokens, have no immediate game effect either (by the way, Tarkin also doesn't work while set aside!) This is why Ginkapo's question about placing a round token on Jaina's Light was pertinent. You need a rule to tell you that you can do that.

I absolutely agree - the FFG definition of effect is the text on the card - and that is the definition that counts. All I am saying is that the wording on the card (hence the effect) remains after emerging from set aside, so the effect is normally still in tact when the ship enters active play, so Tarkin is free to use his effect when he is on the table and active. The difference with Bail is that he has been prevented from setting his trigger parameter (which I agree is part of FFG's effect), so his effect is no longer in tact and cannot be used even when the ship enters active play.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Ahh, I see. Yes. Bail misses his timing window if he is set aside. Point taken!

1 hour ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

Personally I would have liked the Bail and Pryce cards (and indeed any others, present or future, that set a player-definable trigger parameter) to read, "Before deploying fleets ...", not "After ..."

Could be but then both cards would be impractical. It is hard to guess the round with ships in play and it is also easy to counter. Before deployment it is just insane. Your opponent could start to counter your choice placing ships. At least as now he cannot do it until the start of the first round.

Also thematically as they are now it works. Just imagine they planned correctly and that's the reason you choose it after deployment. It still let an open window to bad planning cause the possibility of failing is still there if the round you must do it is not the best or if your ship was destroyed before.

5 hours ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Welp. I tried my best. It is a sad day for Hyperspace Assault, indeed.

Relevant XKCD.

3 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

Relevant XKCD.

True, but wanting is one of the biggest driving forces in the world - wars are fought for it, people die for it.

Nothing wrong with that, but this is the Rules Questions forum, the wishing well is over there.

I was thinking also that if the first part is not an effect that after is not under the restrictions covered by the RRG (immediately after) so technically I could place the round token at the end of the previous round I want to trigger Bail. That's stupidly OP.

55 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I was thinking also that if the first part is not an effect that after is not under the restrictions covered by the RRG (immediately after) so technically I could place the round token at the end of the previous round I want to trigger Bail. That's stupidly OP.

Is the comment directed towards me? I'm afraid I can't decipher your English without a little more context. Sorry.

What is this insane argument where you get to ignore parts of the card since they are not "effects"?

5 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

Relevant XKCD.

Of course, I want Bail to synergize with Hyperspace Assault because it is better for the game. Unfortunately, an overly rigid interpretation of the rules has prevailed. The Bail/Hyperspace combination certainly would not send ripples through any meta that emerges, but I have played the game long enough to know that it would not be anything overpowered or game breaking, either.

The Bail/Hyperspace interaction is as good candidate for an errata. It would do nothing but further diversify objective selection. For a time, the competitive Armada meta became stale, with Yavaris, relay, lifeboats, and squadrons running the show. The recent Wave is an attempt to roll back the rising tide of squadrons, and also presents a good opportunity for old cards (objectives included) to make a comeback. I'm positive that statistics show Hyperspace is almost never used.

Sometimes you have to look at the big picture, and what's better for the game. Like I said before, the game designers gave us a bunch of cards that reward careful preparation (e.g. Thrawn, Pryce and Bail). With strategic, a small window of opportunity, and your opponent's ability to simply fly away from hyperspace tokens, the Bail/Hyperspace combo is not easy to pull off to maximum effect. The combination is clearly a fun one, and has the ability to swing some games, but like I said, it's nothing earth shattering.

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

What is this insane argument where you get to ignore parts of the card since they are not "effects"?

So insane that it argues that exhausting Veteran Gunners is not the effect of Veteran Gunners.