Rapid Launch Bays: Can fighters placed in this way attack?

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Fantastic catch, Dras. The FAQ has precise rules about the meaning of "set aside" squadrons, and how in-game deployment of these squadrons works. Even if the expression is only clarified in the context of Hyperspace Assault, it's a pretty solid basis.

 

EDIT: It's worth noting that the new Fighter Ambush objective card also involves "setting aside" squadrons. Presumably all instances of "setting aside" will be resolved the same way unless otherwise specified.

 

 

 

If we doaccept that, then we accept the follow on:  As these are inevitable questions that, also, are not answered by the Card.....  But we can find guidance in the 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.

 

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

[moodswing5537 1,415]

 

Fantastic catch, Dras. The FAQ has precise rules about the meaning of "set aside" squadrons, and how in-game deployment of these squadrons works. Even if the expression is only clarified in the context of Hyperspace Assault, it's a pretty solid basis.

 

EDIT: It's worth noting that the new Fighter Ambush objective card also involves "setting aside" squadrons. Presumably all instances of "setting aside" will be resolved the same way unless otherwise specified.

 

 

 

If we doaccept that, then we accept the follow on:  As these are inevitable questions that, also, are not answered by the Card.....  But we can find guidance in the 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.

 

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

 

Oh, don't think I won't make a bee line for a carrier with 60+ pts in Rieekan aces sitting off the table to make sure they never "get placed". free pts are free pts after all...

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Because, I mean...  No one has thusfar asked "What if the Ship is Destroyed before launching the fighters?"

 

We've been under the assumption that they are destroyed...  But again, in the spirit of Rules Text being what it is, we need to find the wording that says as such.

 

 

The only place where it is appropriate to find it - at this point in time - is the Hyperspace Assault Guidance text, as it is the only place where we have deployment of set aside squadrons...

 

 

So if we're going to use it for one guidance, use it for all its guidance, I guess - unless its irrelevant or further modified.

 

So that potentially clears that up...  And thusly, I state, that if you are not going to use Hyperspace Assault as guidance as to deal with the placement of fighters - Under What Rule do you declare Squadrons Destroyer (or alive) if the Ship they are assigned to is destroyed beforehand?  

 

 

 

...

 

Urgh.  This morning was far more convoluted than I wanted it to be.

 

Can I go back to some nice Attack-Timing-Chart repostings now?  

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

 

Nope, the symbol then a colon is an additional effect you can trigger.

 

 

 

So by this Definition what does the last sentence even do??? That is what is unclear. Because on this definition the last sentence of pointless.

 

Because for EACH point you have you get to make that decision. You can EITHER place a squadron OR activate a squadron. You can use 2 of your squadron points to do one of each- you can drop a B-Wing, and then use the next squadron point to activate it... but it cannot move this turn,

So your saying the activation in the last sentence of the ships?

 

 

The way I see it:

 

<Begin Blue Ship activation>

1. Ship reveals a Squadron command dial

2. Ship spends command dial to resolve Squadron command (squadron value: 3)

2.1. Ship activates nearby Red Squadron normally:

<Begin Red Squadron activation>

Red Squadron moves

Red Squadron attacks

Slider toggles

<End Red Squadron activation>

2.2. Blue Ship resolves RLB:

Do not activate a squadron; instead

Place a set-aside Green Squadron

Green Squadron cannot move during this (Blue) activation

2.3. Blue Ship activates the deployed Green Squadron normally:

<Begin Green Squadron activation>

Green Squadron cannot move

Green Squadron attacks

Slider toggles

<End Green Squadron activation>

3. Blue Ship attacks

4. Blue Ship resolves maneuver

<End Blue Ship activation>

 

Note that, during each of the red and green blocks, there are two activations happening simultaneously (the ship's and the squadron's). But not during the blue blocks, so that "this activation", at the moment it is resolved, can only refer to the ship's.

Edited December 15, 2016 by DiabloAzul

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

By the way, if squadrons are indeed deployed unactivated, RLB will be amazing with Rogues.

[Ginkapo 9,321]

I am with GK, annoying there is a simple alternative text.

You may activate set aside squadrons, instead of moving these squadrons must be deployed within distance 1.

So simple

Edited December 15, 2016 by Ginkapo

[Tirion 2,223]

I am with GK, annoying there is a simple alternative text.

You may activate set aside squadrons, instead of moving these squadrons must be deployed within distance 1.

So simple

I definitely think this is intent. Unfortunately as has been correctly pointed out to me, the current rules don't necessarily support it. Edited December 15, 2016 by Tirion

[Ginkapo 9,321]

I am with GK, annoying there is a simple alternative text.

You may activate set aside squadrons, instead of moving these squadrons must be deployed within distance 1.

So simple

I definitely think this is intent. Unfortunately as has been correctly pointed out to me, the current rules don't necessarily support it.

No one has yet to clear up the last sentence

Squadron activation makes sense

This turn, would make sense

Ship activation without activating squadrons is just nonsense

[Drasnighta 26,832]

So, applying occams razor in a backhanded away...

 

 

...

 

If it could have been written in such a way in so few words, why go to the trouble to attempt to word it a different way that would seemingly only serve but to invalidate the simple way?

[Ginkapo 9,321]

So, applying occams razor in a backhanded away...

 

 

...

 

If it could have been written in such a way in so few words, why go to the trouble to attempt to word it a different way that would seemingly only serve but to invalidate the simple way?

Yeah I know.

Cause FFG

[Drasnighta 26,832]

 

So, applying occams razor in a backhanded away...

 

 

...

 

If it could have been written in such a way in so few words, why go to the trouble to attempt to word it a different way that would seemingly only serve but to invalidate the simple way?

Yeah I know.

Cause FFG

 

 

...  If that is truly the case, then we reward incompetency with far too much financial reward to go blameless.

[Undeadguy 5,749]

Because, I mean...  No one has thusfar asked "What if the Ship is Destroyed before launching the fighters?"

 

We've been under the assumption that they are destroyed...  But again, in the spirit of Rules Text being what it is, we need to find the wording that says as such.

 

 

The only place where it is appropriate to find it - at this point in time - is the Hyperspace Assault Guidance text, as it is the only place where we have deployment of set aside squadrons...

 

 

So if we're going to use it for one guidance, use it for all its guidance, I guess - unless its irrelevant or further modified.

 

So that potentially clears that up...  And thusly, I state, that if you are not going to use Hyperspace Assault as guidance as to deal with the placement of fighters - Under What Rule do you declare Squadrons Destroyer (or alive) if the Ship they are assigned to is destroyed beforehand?  

What if I Hyperspace Assault in a ship that has squads set aside, but also set aside 3 squads due to Hyperspace Assault??!?! What if I win before I get to deploy any of that?

[Drasnighta 26,832]

 

Because, I mean...  No one has thusfar asked "What if the Ship is Destroyed before launching the fighters?"

 

We've been under the assumption that they are destroyed...  But again, in the spirit of Rules Text being what it is, we need to find the wording that says as such.

 

 

The only place where it is appropriate to find it - at this point in time - is the Hyperspace Assault Guidance text, as it is the only place where we have deployment of set aside squadrons...

 

 

So if we're going to use it for one guidance, use it for all its guidance, I guess - unless its irrelevant or further modified.

 

So that potentially clears that up...  And thusly, I state, that if you are not going to use Hyperspace Assault as guidance as to deal with the placement of fighters - Under What Rule do you declare Squadrons Destroyer (or alive) if the Ship they are assigned to is destroyed beforehand?  

What if I Hyperspace Assault in a ship that has squads set aside, but also set aside 3 squads due to Hyperspace Assault??!?! What if I win before I get to deploy any of that?

 

 

 

You won.

 

But they still all count as destroyed.

[Madaghmire 7,276]

So, applying occams razor in a backhanded away...

 

 

...

 

If it could have been written in such a way in so few words, why go to the trouble to attempt to word it a different way that would seemingly only serve but to invalidate the simple way?

Yeah I know.

Cause FFG

 

...  If that is truly the case, then we reward incompetency with far too much financial reward to go blameless.

Maybe they read it the way many of us did and figured it would be fine? Honestly, just reading it I had no question about how it was supposed to work. It wasn't until I got here that I even realized there could be an alternative interpretation. This whole thing about the activation in question being the ships activation is only ok when looked at in the most technical light according to the game rules. If you go by, you know, English, then its the squadron's activation being referenced. Because you don't get to mix and match pronouns like that.

I feel like in game design theres a lot of instances where the players are like "how the hell did this make it to release?" And the designers are like "why the hell are you doing that in the first place?"

I hope they FAQ it quickly.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

 

I hope they FAQ it quickly.

 

 Indeed.

 

 

Michael Gernes, You're our Only Hope.

[Warlord Zepnick 324]

The language is clear.

 

SETUP-

"Before deploying fleets, you may set aside a number of friendly squadrons up to your squadron value next to your ship card."

 

Easy. If your squadron value is 4, you can set aside up to 4 of your squadrons to be launched from that ship.

 

LAUNCH PROCESS-

[squadron command]: "For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set aside squadrons within distance 1. It cannot move this activation."

 

A few points about the launching process:

 

The words, "[f]or each squadron you would activate with this command.." are meant to differentiate between the Squadron command used from a dial, and the squadron command you use from the token. If you were to reveal a squadron command dial, and your ship has a squadron value of 4, you would be able to launch up to 4 squadrons, but do  not necessarily have to launch all of them with that squadron command. If you spend a squadron token, you may only launch 1 squadron.

 

Ejecting a squadron(s) from your ship is considered an activation. However, what you can do during that activation is simply limited by the sentence, "it (or those) [squadrons] cannot move this activation." If FFG wanted to restrict squadrons from attacking after they launch, then there would have express language on the card prohibiting attacks.

 

Each activation must adhere to the launching process.

 

1) pick 1 squad at a time

2) place 1 squad within distance 1

3) attack with that squad if you so choose

4) activate the next squad(s) up to your squadron value, if you so choose

 

Edit:

 

One of the unique features which makes this card great is that you can indeed drop of some squadrons, but not all of them.

 

Situational squadron launches are going to add a great strategic element to the squadron game.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Warlord Zepnick

[Kristjan 218]

The language is clear.

 

SETUP-

"Before deploying fleets, you may set aside a number of friendly squadrons up to your squadron value next to your ship card."

 

Easy. If your squadron value is 4, you can set aside up to 4 of your squadrons to be launched from that ship.

 

LAUNCH PROCESS-

[squadron command]: "For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set aside squadrons within distance 1. It cannot move this activation."

 

A few points about the launching process:

 

The words, "[f]or each squadron you would activate with this command.." are meant to differentiate between the Squadron command used from a dial, and the squadron command you use from the token. If you were to reveal a squadron command dial, and your ship has a squadron value of 4, you would be able to launch up to 4 squadrons, but do  not necessarily have to launch all of them with that squadron command. If you spend a squadron token, you may only launch 1 squadron.

 

Ejecting a squadron(s) from your ship is considered an activation. However, what you can do during that activation is simply limited by the sentence, "it (or those) [squadrons] cannot move this activation." If FFG wanted to restrict squadrons from attacking after they launch, then there would have express language on the card prohibiting attacks.

 

Each activation must adhere to the launching process.

 

1) pick 1 squad at a time

2) place 1 squad within distance 1

3) attack with that squad if you so choose

4) activate the next squad(s) up to your squadron value, if you so choose

 

Edit:

 

One of the unique features which makes this card great is that you can indeed drop of some squadrons, but not all of them.

 

Situational squadron launches are going to add a great strategic element to the squadron game.

I think you should read the rules reference on page 13, upgrade cards, then the FAQ on placing squads. After that, carefully read the Rapid Launch Bays card again.

[Warlord Zepnick 324]

 

The language is clear.

 

SETUP-

"Before deploying fleets, you may set aside a number of friendly squadrons up to your squadron value next to your ship card."

 

Easy. If your squadron value is 4, you can set aside up to 4 of your squadrons to be launched from that ship.

 

LAUNCH PROCESS-

[squadron command]: "For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set aside squadrons within distance 1. It cannot move this activation."

 

A few points about the launching process:

 

The words, "[f]or each squadron you would activate with this command.." are meant to differentiate between the Squadron command used from a dial, and the squadron command you use from the token. If you were to reveal a squadron command dial, and your ship has a squadron value of 4, you would be able to launch up to 4 squadrons, but do  not necessarily have to launch all of them with that squadron command. If you spend a squadron token, you may only launch 1 squadron.

 

Ejecting a squadron(s) from your ship is considered an activation. However, what you can do during that activation is simply limited by the sentence, "it (or those) [squadrons] cannot move this activation." If FFG wanted to restrict squadrons from attacking after they launch, then there would have express language on the card prohibiting attacks.

 

Each activation must adhere to the launching process.

 

1) pick 1 squad at a time

2) place 1 squad within distance 1

3) attack with that squad if you so choose

4) activate the next squad(s) up to your squadron value, if you so choose

 

Edit:

 

One of the unique features which makes this card great is that you can indeed drop of some squadrons, but not all of them.

 

Situational squadron launches are going to add a great strategic element to the squadron game.

I think you should read the rules reference on page 13, upgrade cards, then the FAQ on placing squads. After that, carefully read the Rapid Launch Bays card again.

 

I looked in those sources quickly but found nothing to support a contrary application of my interpretation of the text of the card.

 

What are all the relevant passages you are referring to? What are you saying about launch bays?

[Eggzavier 1,689]

The more I think about it, the more I believe that all of you are in the right of it with the card written the way it is. 

 

I don't necessarily believe that the intent was to be that way, but as I have railed against others in the past for their interpretation of cards as intended over as written, I believe I am ready to admit that the rules as written support your interpretation more fully.

 

I won't be one of those people that argues this up and down with a TO either to pollute the decision pool and cause uncertainty ( ). 

 

However, I will be looking into this more fully when I get home and will try to present a counterargument. 

 

Good discussion errybody

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Zepnick...  How about I simply re-emphasise some things you did not emphasise, which is the cornerstone of your argument:


|"For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set ...."

 

 

 

Your Argument hinges on the fact that the Placement is part of a Full Squadron Activation.

 

It is an interpretation which was covered earlier - but it is one which ignores the very meaning of the word "Instead".

 

 

That is where the argument gets murky...  You're not activating, you're placing instead...  The other aspects of the activation (Shoot, etc), are not relevant, as this is not an activation.  It is what you are doing instead of activating.

 

If the card stated that you activated, then by all means, I'd be behind it.

 

But it does not.

 

It is one of the things the card does not say, which has lead to this being a 6+ Page discussion.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Drasnighta

[Eggzavier 1,689]

Zepnick...  How about I simply re-emphasise some things you did not emphasise, which is the cornerstone of your argument:

|"For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set ...."

 

 

 

Your Argument hinges on the fact that the Placement is part of a Full Squadron Activation.

 

It is an interpretation which was covered earlier - but it is one which ignores the very meaning of the word "Instead".

 

To clarify, my argument did not ignore the very meaning of the word 'instead'.  (I'd appreciate it if we could stop characterizing it as such.  I'm not an idiot, I know what the word instead means. )

 

My argument was that the 'instead' replaced a part of the fighter activation (specifically what was a valid choice to be targeted with the activation) and did not replace the entire activation.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Eggzavier

[Ginkapo 9,321]

We have no guidance on the meaning of instead.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

To clarify, my argument did not ignore the very meaning of the word 'instead'.

 

 

You're not Zepnick!  You can't be angry at me for that!

No Mail!  No Mail!  

[Warlord Zepnick 324]

Zepnick...  How about I simply re-emphasise some things you did not emphasise, which is the cornerstone of your argument:

|"For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set ...."

 

 

 

Your Argument hinges on the fact that the Placement is part of a Full Squadron Activation.

 

It is an interpretation which was covered earlier - but it is one which ignores the very meaning of the word "Instead".

 

 

That is where the argument gets murky...  You're not activating, you're placing instead...  The other aspects of the activation (Shoot, etc), are not relevant, as this is not an activation.  It is what you are doing instead of activating.

 

If the card stated that you activated, then by all means, I'd be behind it.

 

But it does not.

 

It is one of the things the card does not say, which has lead to this being a 6+ Page discussion.

Instead of conducting a conventional activation (i.e. moving and/or attacking), you are activating the squadron under the formalities of the launch card, which expressly states that you cannot move, not that you cannot shoot.

 

The last sentence, "You cannot move this activation," clearly identifies this as a type of activation.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Warlord Zepnick

[Drasnighta 26,832]

 

Zepnick...  How about I simply re-emphasise some things you did not emphasise, which is the cornerstone of your argument:

|"For each squadron you would activate with this command, you may instead place 1 of your set ...."

 

 

 

Your Argument hinges on the fact that the Placement is part of a Full Squadron Activation.

 

It is an interpretation which was covered earlier - but it is one which ignores the very meaning of the word "Instead".

 

 

That is where the argument gets murky...  You're not activating, you're placing instead...  The other aspects of the activation (Shoot, etc), are not relevant, as this is not an activation.  It is what you are doing instead of activating.

 

If the card stated that you activated, then by all means, I'd be behind it.

 

But it does not.

 

It is one of the things the card does not say, which has lead to this being a 6+ Page discussion.

Instead of conducting a conventional activation (i.e. moving and/or attacking), you are activating the squadron under the formalities of the launch card, which expressly states that you cannot move, not that you cannot shoot.

 

 

Still a stretch, as the card does not say that.

 

The only guidance we have on squadrons that are deployed and placed outside of the initial deployment state, says that they are placed unactivated.

If we were going to be placing things activated - would it not say to do so?