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

[Drasnighta 26,832]

That's a Great example of a Worst Case Scenario.

 

 

Its also a Great Example of "Lots of Easily Disrupted Moving Parts".

 

 

If you can do it as to none of those moving parts gets disrupted:

(FC moves allowed due to no engagement - Intel doesn't help, ships being blocked / stopped from moving away, yavaris getting in Range, etc, etc, etc)...


THEN YOU DESERVE TO REAP THE WHIRLWIND.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Drasnighta

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

...****, Dras just beat me to it.

 

Both scenarios are nasty, and both also involve a huge percentage of your total fleet points. But the B-Wing scenario also requires co-ordinating various moving parts and complete inaction by the enemy.

[Eggzavier 1,689]

Sure, if the opponent has some fighters in the defense it might make it a more difficult maneuver to pull off, but people are routinely able to double tap a Yavaris FC/FCT already with lots of anti-squadron lists floating around.

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

Having said that, I have no strong opinion on whether one interpretation is more "balanced" than the other. My previously expressed thoughts were purely about RAW and RAI.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Sure, if the opponent has some fighters in the defense it might make it a more difficult maneuver to pull off, but people are routinely able to double tap a Yavaris FC/FCT already with lots of anti-squadron lists floating around.

 

Yep, which is Yavaris, on its own.

 

Usually, it drags and launches and then Dies...  You use it once, and poof.

None of that accounts for having to coordinate multiple activations and multiple ships...

 

 

And generally requries a fairly straight line to target - Certain Not with a Fat-arsed MC80 in the way already

 

 

 

I mean, don't get me wrong...   I LOVE YAVARIS...  But its Point-and-Click, and doesn't respond well to the enemy messing things about.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

And I'm deliberately not coming to a conclusion on this, myself, for selfish reasons.


As I want to use the crap out of this at Regionals, and I do not want to influence the Regional Judge's Opinion in my favour, like, the Week before the competition...  >.>

[Eggzavier 1,689]

Strange, my Yavaris is usually the last thing left standing 

 

At any rate, I've stated my case, and I hope we get an FAQ on thursday. 

[Sybreed 1,110]

Strange, my Yavaris is usually the last thing left standing 

 

At any rate, I've stated my case, and I hope we get an FAQ on thursday. 

 

I wish I could be as hopeful as you.

[Undeadguy 5,749]

Strange, my Yavaris is usually the last thing left standing 

 

At any rate, I've stated my case, and I hope we get an FAQ on thursday. 

Doesn't it take 30 days from the release to get an FAQ?

[Drasnighta 26,832]

 

Strange, my Yavaris is usually the last thing left standing 

 

At any rate, I've stated my case, and I hope we get an FAQ on thursday. 

Doesn't it take 30 days from the release to get an FAQ?

 

 

That was Old Pre-Merger-Rules-Team-System rules...

[homedrone 253]

What does the French version say.. it might be clearer..or at least a different reading that might clarify something. Get a better look at the RAI.

[Undeadguy 5,749]

 

 

Strange, my Yavaris is usually the last thing left standing 

 

At any rate, I've stated my case, and I hope we get an FAQ on thursday. 

Doesn't it take 30 days from the release to get an FAQ?

 

 

That was Old Pre-Merger-Rules-Team-System rules...

 

Well do you really they will release wave 5+CC and have an FAQ the next day? That would indicate they knew the cards were worded poorly and didn't fix them, either because they had to get it to manufacturing or they didn't care to fix it.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

 

 

 

Strange, my Yavaris is usually the last thing left standing 

 

At any rate, I've stated my case, and I hope we get an FAQ on thursday. 

Doesn't it take 30 days from the release to get an FAQ?

 

 

That was Old Pre-Merger-Rules-Team-System rules...

 

Well do you really they will release wave 5+CC and have an FAQ the next day? That would indicate they knew the cards were worded poorly and didn't fix them, either because they had to get it to manufacturing or they didn't care to fix it.

 

 

What I think is completely irrelevant.

 

What I am told by the person doing the FAQ, is that they were indeed endeavouring to have an FAQ out as soon as possible after Release...

 

...  and for that reason they were not going to be answering questions on the spoiled subjects in the meantime.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Drasnighta

[Eggzavier 1,689]

What does the French version say.. it might be clearer..or at least a different reading that might clarify something. Get a better look at the RAI.

 

"For each squadron you are supposed to activate with that [sic] order, you can place 1 of your squadrons set aside within distance 1 instead.  This squadron can not move during this activation."

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by Eggzavier

[homedrone 253]

Hmm.. I guess it leaves us in the same place. 

Thanks for the info anyway, Eggzavier.

[Sybreed 1,110]

it really reads as the squadron are activated.

 

Which means, in short, that it's a potential way to negate intel with a super fighter alpha strike or to protect your bomber inside your ship before getting at range 1 to an enemy ship.

 

I wonder though: What happens if your ship blows up before you launch the squadrons? They lost as well?

Edited December 17, 2016 by Sybreed

[Drasnighta 26,832]

it really reads as if the squadron is activated.

 

Which means, in short, that it's a potential way to negate intel with a super fighter alpha strike or to protect your bomber inside your ship before getting at range 1 to an enemy ship.

 

I wonder though: What happens if your ship blows up before you launch the squadrons? They lost as well?

 

That depends.

The one thing we have with precedent that tells us what to do with Squadrons that are off the board......   Tells us that Squadrons Deployed on the Board from being set aside are Unactivated....

[AegisGrimm 284]

See, I am a newbie to Armada, but as a long-time wargamer I would interpret the second sentence of "It cannot move this activation" as being better interpreted/printed as "this counts as the squadron's movement for this activation."

So they still attack, but only if the Range one placement puts them into an engagement range.

Essentially any squadron activated thusly has a movement speed of one, starting from where it leaves the carrier's launch bay, so it 'moved' to the location it gets placed at.

[Sybreed 1,110]

See, I am a newbie to Armada, but as a long-time wargamer I would interpret the second sentence of "It cannot move this activation" as being better interpreted/printed as "this counts as the squadron's movement for this activation."

So they still attack, but only if the Range one placement puts them into an engagement range.

Essentially any squadron activated thusly has a movement speed of one, starting from where it leaves the carrier's launch bay, so it 'moved' to the location it gets placed at.

 

that's how I interpret it

[Jondavies72 575]

See, I am a newbie to Armada, but as a long-time wargamer I would interpret the second sentence of "It cannot move this activation" as being better interpreted/printed as "this counts as the squadron's movement for this activation."

So they still attack, but only if the Range one placement puts them into an engagement range.

Essentially any squadron activated thusly has a movement speed of one, starting from where it leaves the carrier's launch bay, so it 'moved' to the location it gets placed at.

 

that's how I interpret it

That's how the card reads to me as well, that last sentence just does not make sense otherwise.

[Jondavies72 575]

I do think that until we get an FAQ it may be worth getting a TO to give a ruling and publish this before people hand in there lists in a tournament. If you design a list for this card to work one way and a TO judges another you will have a problem.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

I do think that until we get an FAQ it may be worth getting a TO to give a ruling and publish this before people hand in there lists in a tournament. If you design a list for this card to work one way and a TO judges another you will have a problem.

 

This should always be the case.

 

But don't try to suggest that we, as a group, should try to come up and form a basis of discussion as to what answer might be considered 'mostly correct' and suggested to be used worldwide...  Oh no.  That generates so much hate its not funny.

[homedrone 253]

See, I am a newbie to Armada, but as a long-time wargamer I would interpret the second sentence of "It cannot move this activation" as being better interpreted/printed as "this counts as the squadron's movement for this activation."

So they still attack, but only if the Range one placement puts them into an engagement range.

Essentially any squadron activated thusly has a movement speed of one, starting from where it leaves the carrier's launch bay, so it 'moved' to the location it gets placed at.

 

 

 

See, I am a newbie to Armada, but as a long-time wargamer I would interpret the second sentence of "It cannot move this activation" as being better interpreted/printed as "this counts as the squadron's movement for this activation."

So they still attack, but only if the Range one placement puts them into an engagement range.

Essentially any squadron activated thusly has a movement speed of one, starting from where it leaves the carrier's launch bay, so it 'moved' to the location it gets placed at.

 

that's how I interpret it

 

That is how I also originally interpreted it as well, and was pretty sure it was clear, but after reading this thread I can see there is enough ambiguity if you dig into it that its not so cut and dry.

The catch is that the rule for placing a unit is that it's set unactivated.. and it says INSTEAD of activate, place..  and it could be interpreted that the "this activation" is the ships activation.. so these newly placed squads can't move during this ship's activation with something like FCTs. So if you read it that way, it's all consistent. But reading it as you (and I) do, the INSTEAD becomes a problem.

I still feel our interpretation is the correct one as it's more like what I would guess they meant this card to be. The other interpretation seems overly complicated and weird. But, it is worded weirdly, so maybe a weird rule is what they intended?

[Undeadguy 5,749]

There is no rule for placing a unit. But there is a rule for deploying units.

 

If the card said you deployd a squad at range 1, I think there would be no disgreement that the squad comes in activated and ready to kill. But it says place, and we have no reference for "placing" units on the board.

[Warlord Zepnick 324]

I do think that until we get an FAQ it may be worth getting a TO to give a ruling and publish this before people hand in there lists in a tournament. If you design a list for this card to work one way and a TO judges another you will have a problem.

Allow one person to make a ruling on this before an FAQ is released? Bad idea.