• The Instigator title reads, "Enemy squadrons at distance 1 are treated as if they are engaged by 2 additional squadrons, even if they are not currently engaged."

Ok because i'm far too lazy too look through 6 pages of the Raider Breakdown.

What does this mean? Why does it matter if how many squadrons are engaging with? Am I missing something or is this some other ability we are not aware of yet?

I think it is all covered and discussed in the raider breakdown.

I think it is all covered and discussed in the raider breakdown.

lol no i'm not doing it.

It means that the enemy squadrons at range one of the instigator are engaged and cant move.

It means that the enemy squadrons at range one of the instigator are engaged and cant move.

I get that part, but what about this?

are treated as if they are engaged by 2 additional squadrons

Why does it matter that there are 2 additional squads tying them down?

This sentence would mean that even if they were already tied down they are tied down by 2 more. why?

It means that the enemy squadrons at range one of the instigator are engaged and cant move.

I get that part, but what about this?

are treated as if they are engaged by 2 additional squadrons

Why does it matter that there are 2 additional squads tying them down?

This sentence would mean that even if they were already tied down they are tied down by 2 more. why?

If a new mechanic comes into play that has to deal with the number of squadrons that have engaged you, then this title counts as 2.

Yes.. It will Engage like a Fighter, but the "2 Additional Squadrons" bit makes no sense at the moment...

The inference is Grit may allow you to ignore being Engaged, if you are only engaged by One Squadron.

Which would mean that the Raider always counts as 2 Squadrons, and can lock you down.

Thanks guys. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some rule I've missed this whole time.

Not Yet at least

It ADDITIONALLY means the Squadrons can't attack ships...including Instigator. /wink

It ADDITIONALLY means the Squadrons can't attack ships...including Instigator. /wink

This one's up for debate still... Since they must attack squadrons if possible, but there are no squadrons, so its not possible...

So... Yeah. Don't bank on that one until someone gets kicked around and comes back from FFG

It ADDITIONALLY means the Squadrons can't attack ships...including Instigator. /wink

This one's up for debate still... Since they must attack squadrons if possible, but there are no squadrons, so its not possible...

So... Yeah. Don't bank on that one until someone gets kicked around and comes back from FFG

Shame on me, let me revisit 'Engaged' then. Good follow up point.

***EDIT: After another look at 'Engagement' pg 6 RRG, I defer to your obvservation.

It ADDITIONALLY means the Squadrons can't attack ships...including Instigator. /wink

This one's up for debate still... Since they must attack squadrons if possible, but there are no squadrons, so its not possible...

So... Yeah. Don't bank on that one until someone gets kicked around and comes back from FFG

I would like to see an FAQ where they have to attack objects that are engaged with them instead of "check for squadrons, if no squadrons, proceed"

Seeing as I'm off the mark here tonight, can anyone explain why they are using the 'Long Range' portion of the Range Ruler instead of the other 'Distance' side to measure what squadrons are affected?

Pardons, I was referencing this article"Fast and Aggressive" https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/9/18/fast-and-aggressive/

Seeing as I'm off the mark here tonight, can anyone explain why they are using the 'Long Range' portion of the Range Ruler instead of the other 'Distance' side to measure what squadrons are affected?

Pardons, I was referencing this article"Fast and Aggressive" https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/9/18/fast-and-aggressive/

I don't think it's mean in a literal rule-mechanical way. More like 'if it goes on ahead of the fleet, it might survive if it takes Montferrat'. Could be wrong though.

Seeing as I'm off the mark here tonight, can anyone explain why they are using the 'Long Range' portion of the Range Ruler instead of the other 'Distance' side to measure what squadrons are affected?

Pardons, I was referencing this article"Fast and Aggressive" https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/9/18/fast-and-aggressive/

My guess would be that the graphic designer and the rules designer have... different skill sets

Seeing as I'm off the mark here tonight, can anyone explain why they are using the 'Long Range' portion of the Range Ruler instead of the other 'Distance' side to measure what squadrons are affected?

Pardons, I was referencing this article"Fast and Aggressive" https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/9/18/fast-and-aggressive/

I don't think it's mean in a literal rule-mechanical way. More like 'if it goes on ahead of the fleet, it might survive if it takes Montferrat'. Could be wrong though.

I think he means this (rather wrong) diagram:

Sweet jeebus. /facepalm

We should run contests every new article that goes up. Spot as many typos,misprints, inaccuracies and glaring f@#kups as you can before they get corrected. Then we cant bet on how many actually get corrected, and how long it takes to happen.

Sweet jeebus. /facepalm

We should run contests every new article that goes up. Spot as many typos,misprints, inaccuracies and glaring f@#kups as you can before they get corrected. Then we cant bet on how many actually get corrected, and how long it takes to happen.

I'll be honest, I'm no longer surprised at FFGs lack of professionalism. If it weren't for their quality models (though the armada paintjobs are questionable) I doubt they'd still have the star wars licence.

Seriously? I think they've done a hell of a job with Armada. Virtually no errata (it's mostly all minor stuff - only the LOS thing is still an issue), deep, balanced and fairly diverse gameplay even at this early stage, great prepainted models, excellent art & design, innovative rules, and loving attention to the IP. A far cry from. say. the original Doom and Descent titles (*cringe*).

It's hardly fair to criticise a game because one of the graphic designers illustrating a news article got a technicality wrong.

Seriously? I think they've done a hell of a job with Armada. Virtually no errata (it's mostly all minor stuff - only the LOS thing is still an issue), deep, balanced and fairly diverse gameplay even at this early stage, great prepainted models, excellent art & design, innovative rules, and loving attention to the IP. A far cry from. say. the original Doom and Descent titles (*cringe*).It's hardly fair to criticise a game because one of the graphic designers illustrating a news article got a technicality wrong.

My issue is that with armada, they have had zero on schedule releases, the paintjobs are horrible and we pay a premium price for this. If Disney were to license the rights to an armada style game out to wizkid, I doubt FFG would be able to deal with the competition.

Then there's also the completely inept articles! That's just icing.

The lack of communication with its consumers is also deplorable.

I enjoy this game, I really do, I feel however that FFG REALLY needs to start taking more responsibility and hold itself accountable for these delays and quality issues.

That you actually compared WizKids favorable up against FFG in regards to ability to produce quality games is just inconceivable.

The only thing WizKids does "better" is pump out product. But even that isn't a positive as the product (both the physical product and games) are of such a low quality that thier breakneck release schedule is clearly designed to milk concepts for all they can before players initial enthusiasm dies and they stop playing such poorly made games.

That you actually compared WizKids favorable up against FFG in regards to ability to produce quality games is just inconceivable.

The only thing WizKids does "better" is pump out product. But even that isn't a positive as the product (both the physical product and games) are of such a low quality that thier breakneck release schedule is clearly designed to milk concepts for all they can before players initial enthusiasm dies and they stop playing such poorly made games.

As I said, I enjoy armada by FFG, it has a very nice ruleset. Wizkids though, they are meeting scheduled releases! FFGs record for armada is 3 releases, 3 delays! The fact is, FFG has no competition and that allows them to consistently fail to release without any consequences.

As for quality, FFG uses a better material, aside from that my corvettes, gladiator and frigate came nearly unpainted!