Oh dear, the sentence structure of that rules blurb. It's painful to see. First, add it to your group. Then, don't count its order if you have more than ten. Last, don't add it to your group if you have ten or more.
I'm not certain that you don't automatically gain an Order when you add it to the group out of sequence (the 'and it also provides the Order'). Can we agree that the intent is that the AI Beacon is added to the group in any event but the order is only generated if you have 10 or less Troopers (ie the Combat Group can go above 10 but the orders generated are capped at 10)? This is to avoid having a limbo where the Trooper is neither in your opponents Combat Group nor (maybe, possibly but I'm really not certain) in yours but is still on the table and active. Edit: rereading it I'm fairly certain the subject of the third sentence is 'the Order' not 'an AI Beacon' as follows: If so, then my 'Can we just agree' above is actually RAW.
@inane.imp I'm not talking about the order, I'm talking about the trooper itself being added to the group. The rules are, I think, redundantly clear that the order itself is only added if generated during Tactical Phase
That's precisely the issue, the subject of the various sentences (arguably) is not the same: And I'm not certain they are that clear; they're certainly clear that the AI Beacon generates the order during subsequent Tactical Phases but it's quite possible to read that the AI Beacon moves during the Resolution of the order in which Minesweeper was used and simultaneously provide an Order to the gaining player. I don't think that's RAI... but honestly, I no longer really know with these sorts of things. IE. First, add the AI Beacon to your group and it provides an Order to the pool. Then, in subsequent Tactical phases do count the Order (unless you have more than 10). Otherwise (ie. you have more than 10) don't add the Order to your pool. Personally, I think it should be played as the blue text only, but the read text is supported by the rules (assuming that you treat that specific line as over-riding the usual way Orders are generated, which personally I don't think is true).
