Late to the discussion. I played in a demo and received a critical hit. The flavor text mentioned that some of my crew was killed. The result was I permanently lost one of my defense tokens.

Surely it is only when engaged with enemy fighters that you are unable to attack capital ships, and not a blanket statement about any enemy fighters being on the board. Otherwise this is a serious design flaw, as you could simply take two or three squadrons, fly them to opposite corners, and then no enemy fighter squadron could ever make a meaningful attack, as they would have to spend the whole game moving out to get you and then coming back. I don't think the designers would have missed something as obvious as this.

It could be the squadrons have to be within certain distance of the ship. I know for a fact in my demo that some X-Wings were not engaged yet they were not allowed to attack my VSD. They had to move to engage the TIE fighters. We obviously don't have all the context.

Surely it is only when engaged with enemy fighters that you are unable to attack capital ships, and not a blanket statement about any enemy fighters being on the board. Otherwise this is a serious design flaw, as you could simply take two or three squadrons, fly them to opposite corners, and then no enemy fighter squadron could ever make a meaningful attack, as they would have to spend the whole game moving out to get you and then coming back. I don't think the designers would have missed something as obvious as this.

It could be the squadrons have to be within certain distance of the ship. I know for a fact in my demo that some X-Wings were not engaged yet they were not allowed to attack my VSD. They had to move to engage the TIE fighters. We obviously don't have all the context.

Or within certain distance of the opposing fighters.

Surely it is only when engaged with enemy fighters that you are unable to attack capital ships, and not a blanket statement about any enemy fighters being on the board. Otherwise this is a serious design flaw, as you could simply take two or three squadrons, fly them to opposite corners, and then no enemy fighter squadron could ever make a meaningful attack, as they would have to spend the whole game moving out to get you and then coming back. I don't think the designers would have missed something as obvious as this.

It could be the squadrons have to be within certain distance of the ship. I know for a fact in my demo that some X-Wings were not engaged yet they were not allowed to attack my VSD. They had to move to engage the TIE fighters. We obviously don't have all the context.

Or within certain distance of the opposing fighters.

Perhaps if they can move to engage enemy fighters they must? so fighter range1+ fighter movement?

Surely it is only when engaged with enemy fighters that you are unable to attack capital ships, and not a blanket statement about any enemy fighters being on the board. Otherwise this is a serious design flaw, as you could simply take two or three squadrons, fly them to opposite corners, and then no enemy fighter squadron could ever make a meaningful attack, as they would have to spend the whole game moving out to get you and then coming back. I don't think the designers would have missed something as obvious as this.

It could be the squadrons have to be within certain distance of the ship. I know for a fact in my demo that some X-Wings were not engaged yet they were not allowed to attack my VSD. They had to move to engage the TIE fighters. We obviously don't have all the context.

Or within certain distance of the opposing fighters.

Perhaps if they can move to engage enemy fighters they must? so fighter range1+ fighter movement?

Surely it is only when engaged with enemy fighters that you are unable to attack capital ships, and not a blanket statement about any enemy fighters being on the board. Otherwise this is a serious design flaw, as you could simply take two or three squadrons, fly them to opposite corners, and then no enemy fighter squadron could ever make a meaningful attack, as they would have to spend the whole game moving out to get you and then coming back. I don't think the designers would have missed something as obvious as this.

It could be the squadrons have to be within certain distance of the ship. I know for a fact in my demo that some X-Wings were not engaged yet they were not allowed to attack my VSD. They had to move to engage the TIE fighters. We obviously don't have all the context.

Or within certain distance of the opposing fighters.

Perhaps if they can move to engage enemy fighters they must? so fighter range1+ fighter movement?

This certainly wasn't the rule during the demo. When I said they "had" to move to engage the TIE fighters, it was because they didn't really have another choice. There was nothing else they could do.

Were you in range band 4 of a squadron? (IE able to engage them with X-wings)?

Surely it is only when engaged with enemy fighters that you are unable to attack capital ships, and not a blanket statement about any enemy fighters being on the board. Otherwise this is a serious design flaw, as you could simply take two or three squadrons, fly them to opposite corners, and then no enemy fighter squadron could ever make a meaningful attack, as they would have to spend the whole game moving out to get you and then coming back. I don't think the designers would have missed something as obvious as this.

It could be the squadrons have to be within certain distance of the ship. I know for a fact in my demo that some X-Wings were not engaged yet they were not allowed to attack my VSD. They had to move to engage the TIE fighters. We obviously don't have all the context.

Or within certain distance of the opposing fighters.

Perhaps if they can move to engage enemy fighters they must? so fighter range1+ fighter movement?

This certainly wasn't the rule during the demo. When I said they "had" to move to engage the TIE fighters, it was because they didn't really have another choice. There was nothing else they could do.

Were you in range band 4 of a squadron? (IE able to engage them with X-wings)?

Let me rephrase.

The Rebel player asked if he could shoot at the VSD. The producer of the game was running the demo and said no, squadrons cannot attack ships while enemy squadrons are present. The rebel player then repositioned the X-Wing squadron to engage some TIE fighters because there was nothing else useful for them to do. He was not told he had to engage them, he was simply told he had to eliminate them to start taking shots at the VSD.

There was no other context for the rule. The producer didn't say there were exceptions or certain circumstances. It was simply are there TIE fighters on the board? If yes, then your X-Wings cannot attack the VSD.

Could there be exceptions or other context? Most certainly. However none was given during the demo. We will just have to keep speculating and wait for the rulebook.

Accidental double post.

Could there be exceptions or other context? Most certainly. However none was given during the demo. We will just have to keep speculating and wait for the rulebook.

Hmm so either A) the producer forgot to mention it was only if a fighter was in range and/or didn't explain any other exceptions or context for whatever reason or B) running 3 VSDs and 2 Tie Squadrons and parking said squadrons in opposite corners of the board is a legal strategy.

If B) that may have killed any interest in playing this competitively for me because if its legal and a semidecent strategy people will do it no matter how unthematic or unfun it will be to play against

If B) that may have killed any interest in playing this competitively for me because if its legal and a semidecent strategy people will do it no matter how unthematic or unfun it will be to play against

Which is why if it is B they're going to catch that in the next 6 or more months or so of playtesting. Let's not forget that all the cards had BETA written all over them for a reason. While we love to speculate and will never stop doing so, all of the rules we've been presented so far are subject to possible changes.

If B) that may have killed any interest in playing this competitively for me because if its legal and a semidecent strategy people will do it no matter how unthematic or unfun it will be to play against

Which is why if it is B they're going to catch that in the next 6 or more months or so of playtesting. Let's not forget that all the cards had BETA written all over them for a reason. While we love to speculate and will never stop doing so, all of the rules we've been presented so far are subject to possible changes.

It could be an intentional rule (I would hope not but still...), I would guess we will need to wait until the rulebook is out to be sure

If B) that may have killed any interest in playing this competitively for me because if its legal and a semidecent strategy people will do it no matter how unthematic or unfun it will be to play against

Which is why if it is B they're going to catch that in the next 6 or more months or so of playtesting. Let's not forget that all the cards had BETA written all over them for a reason. While we love to speculate and will never stop doing so, all of the rules we've been presented so far are subject to possible changes.

It could be an intentional rule (I would hope not but still...), I would guess we will need to wait until the rulebook is out to be sure

I doubt it, since as other have pointed out, it encourages taking two fighters and flying them to the farthest corner of the board to neutralize enemy fighters for much of the game. That isn't fun, and FFG likes their games to be fun.

Another possibility is that knowing they were pressed for time on the demos, FFG chose to:

A) only play with the Armada equivalent of Quick Start Rules (which probably greatly simplify Fighter Interactions)

B) simplify the rules to emphasize the Capital Ships movement, shields, firepower, etc, since the Capital Ships are the focus. (It looked like the demos were limited to only a couple turns, so this might explain not wanting to go into all the exceptions for Fighters.)

C) not utilize any of the games Advanced Rules to speed the demos, and concentrate on the core rules. (They didn't cover repairs, for example, in any of the demos I saw on video. Just mentioned they existed.)

D) Another possibility is the person running the demo, got flustered and made the blanket statement that the VSD couldn't be attacked, but didn't explain the reason why (again, not wanting to slow the game down with exceptions.)

We will just have to be patient and glean all the information we can. The hard part in our analysis will be differentiating between fact and opinion in some cases, until we see the actual rules...

There is absolutely no way that you will be required to eliminate all fighters before attacking capital ships. Any kind of bomber squadron would be rendered pointless by such a rule, as taking bombers in lieu of space superiority fighters makes you less likely to win the furball and be able to attack capital ships. In such a scenario, there would be no reason to ever take anything other than the best possible dogfighters.

Common sense tells us that such a rule simply will not exist, and that the demo staff either simplified rules for the benefit of less wargame-savvy Gencon attendees or flat-out made an error.

In the TC demo they said that a fighter squad that was I think in range 1 of another fighter squad is engaged and they must shoot at each other. It sounds like either the guy got it wrong, or something. I can imagine that after giving enough demo's and maybe watching more then one table... Plus maybe being distracted by a cosplayer... that they might make a mental slip from time to time.

As others point out, if you have to destroy the fighters first, then that's a pretty massive hole in the game rules.

I think the most likely scenario is that squadrons within a certain distance of a ship are considered escorts and act as a buffer. They must be engaged and destroyed before enemy squadrons can attack the ship. If the squadrons move away from a ship, that ship is then exposed. This would prevent someone from running 2 TIE squadrons off to the corners.

I could also see certain types of squadrons or ordinance getting around this limitation with a special ability.

In the TC demo they said that a fighter squad that was I think in range 1 of another fighter squad is engaged and they must shoot at each other. It sounds like either the guy got it wrong, or something. I can imagine that after giving enough demo's and maybe watching more then one table... Plus maybe being distracted by a cosplayer... that they might make a mental slip from time to time.As others point out, if you have to destroy the fighters first, then that's a pretty massive hole in the game rules.

I did my demo early Friday. I was probably only the 3rd or 4th group to move through that day. The guy running the demo did not seem tired or distracted at all.

I find it unlikely he was wrong, we just lack the bigger context for the rule.

I think the most likely scenario is that squadrons within a certain distance of a ship are considered escorts and act as a buffer. They must be engaged and destroyed before enemy squadrons can attack the ship. If the squadrons move away from a ship, that ship is then exposed. This would prevent someone from running 2 TIE squadrons off to the corners.

I could also see certain types of squadrons or ordinance getting around this limitation with a special ability.

Eh, even that sounds a little silly, as breaking through CAP to attack ships is a common practice both in Star Wars and real-life naval combat. Bombers don't care about killing fighters; they're going for the real targets. Plus, with the "furball" rule preventing fighters from moving when within range 1 of an enemy squadron, there's already a very strong mechanic for screening capital ships built in.

I guess some kind of special rule on bombers squadrons to circumvent needing to wipe out the fighter cover could make sense, but such a rule seems pretty silly to me. With fighters able to act as escorts, you could hang one or two TIE squadrons at range 1 all the way behind your VSD and be completely immune to fighter attacks until the Rebels ran all the way around to get to your screen. Not very thematic, and doesn't sound very fun either.

Personally, I believe that the staffer was probably just simplifying rules for ease of play during the demo. Even if we assume that your rule interpretation is right, the staffer simplified "cannot attack capital ships that have a fighter screen" to "cannot attack capital ships while fighters are on the board". It seems just as likely that he might have wanted to force fighters to attack fighters to keep the demo easy to play, while in the "real" game fighters can go after capital ships all they want.

I think the most likely scenario is that squadrons within a certain distance of a ship are considered escorts and act as a buffer. They must be engaged and destroyed before enemy squadrons can attack the ship. If the squadrons move away from a ship, that ship is then exposed. This would prevent someone from running 2 TIE squadrons off to the corners.

I could also see certain types of squadrons or ordinance getting around this limitation with a special ability.

Eh, even that sounds a little silly, as breaking through CAP to attack ships is a common practice both in Star Wars and real-life naval combat. Bombers don't care about killing fighters; they're going for the real targets. Plus, with the "furball" rule preventing fighters from moving when within range 1 of an enemy squadron, there's already a very strong mechanic for screening capital ships built in.

I guess some kind of special rule on bombers squadrons to circumvent needing to wipe out the fighter cover could make sense, but such a rule seems pretty silly to me. With fighters able to act as escorts, you could hang one or two TIE squadrons at range 1 all the way behind your VSD and be completely immune to fighter attacks until the Rebels ran all the way around to get to your screen. Not very thematic, and doesn't sound very fun either.

Personally, I believe that the staffer was probably just simplifying rules for ease of play during the demo. Even if we assume that your rule interpretation is right, the staffer simplified "cannot attack capital ships that have a fighter screen" to "cannot attack capital ships while fighters are on the board". It seems just as likely that he might have wanted to force fighters to attack fighters to keep the demo easy to play, while in the "real" game fighters can go after capital ships all they want.

Every demo only lasted a single round (well a round of only movement, and then a full round). Virtually impossible for anything significant to happen (though a VSD can one shot a CR90, since mine did ). There would be no reason not to allow the squadrons to attack the ships.

And if I am remembering right, the exact quote was, "Squadrons cannot attack ships when enemy squadrons are present."

Present can be any number of things. I know for a fact the squadron in question was not engaged with another squadron. I've already admitted as much that the statement was simplified and we do not have the full details.

I think if enemy fighters are within range of your fighters, then you have to engage them first. not if their are ties on the other side of the map. this makes sense. If you are coming in on a bombing run and their are fighters nearby, you have to engae them or they will just pull in behind you and smoke you. This allows fighters to be the screens and pickets they are designed to be. Pawns, if you will.

gold group tried to ignore the fighters. It did not end well.