The problem with the "Instigator argument" is that it's wording, and the wording of the second bullet point under the RRG under engagement, supports absolutely no other interpretation. This is going to be like the FAQ entries for Screed and Warlord. It'll get one, but it really didn't need one. People are just people, and therefore awful.

The problem with the "Instigator argument" is that it's wording, and the wording of the second bullet point under the RRG under engagement, supports absolutely no other interpretation. This is going to be like the FAQ entries for Screed and Warlord. It'll get one, but it really didn't need one. People are just people, and therefore awful.

Agreed. There is zero room for ambiguity here, but it's happening anyway because of people.

I can see why people would be confused by instigator.

If there is a Bwing, tie and instigator, I would want my bwing to attack Instigator. Since the bwing is engaged with both the tie and instigator, people will quite easily "short circuit" the rules to "oh, we are engaged, then I can attack the instigator".

Argument ensues.

I can see why people would be confused by instigator.

If there is a Bwing, tie and instigator, I would want my bwing to attack Instigator. Since the bwing is engaged with both the tie and instigator, people will quite easily "short circuit" the rules to "oh, we are engaged, then I can attack the instigator".

Argument ensues.

I feel that this argument can be made at any time, and its called not paying attention to the rules. Since the rules are not vague.

I can see why people would be confused by instigator.

If there is a Bwing, tie and instigator, I would want my bwing to attack Instigator. Since the bwing is engaged with both the tie and instigator, people will quite easily "short circuit" the rules to "oh, we are engaged, then I can attack the instigator".

Argument ensues.

Any time in a game an argument ensues you are supposed to refer to the rules, yes? In this case, it would be fair to say that you should refer to the engagement rules, as that's the game aspect being argued over. And if you were to do so you'd almost immediately be greeted with this phrase: "When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship." Nothing about the Instigator title supersedes this rule. Thus the Bwing must engage and kill the TIE before it engages the ship.

I can see why people would be confused by instigator.

If there is a Bwing, tie and instigator, I would want my bwing to attack Instigator. Since the bwing is engaged with both the tie and instigator, people will quite easily "short circuit" the rules to "oh, we are engaged, then I can attack the instigator".

Argument ensues.

Any time in a game an argument ensues you are supposed to refer to the rules, yes? In this case, it would be fair to say that you should refer to the engagement rules, as that's the game aspect being argued over. And if you were to do so you'd almost immediately be greeted with this phrase: "When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship." Nothing about the Instigator title supersedes this rule. Thus the Bwing must engage and kill the TIE before it engages the ship.

I think they are trying to say that not everybody will pull out the rulebook and assume they know how the rule is worded.

The warlord situation was different, because their was a gray area, no "if possible" wording, and the question of intent on the rules and how they were designed.

Thanks Lyraeus !

I can see why people would be confused by instigator.

If there is a Bwing, tie and instigator, I would want my bwing to attack Instigator. Since the bwing is engaged with both the tie and instigator, people will quite easily "short circuit" the rules to "oh, we are engaged, then I can attack the instigator".

Argument ensues.

Any time in a game an argument ensues you are supposed to refer to the rules, yes? In this case, it would be fair to say that you should refer to the engagement rules, as that's the game aspect being argued over. And if you were to do so you'd almost immediately be greeted with this phrase: "When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship." Nothing about the Instigator title supersedes this rule. Thus the Bwing must engage and kill the TIE before it engages the ship.

I think they are trying to say that not everybody will pull out the rulebook and assume they know how the rule is worded.

The warlord situation was different, because their was a gray area, no "if possible" wording, and the question of intent on the rules and how they were designed.

Ha, you have clearly spent no time arguing against opponents while playing any of GW's product lines. FFG's are practically ironclad simplicity-wise in comparison. At the very least FFG's rulebook has answers, and doesn't cause more questions

I can see why people would be confused by instigator.

If there is a Bwing, tie and instigator, I would want my bwing to attack Instigator. Since the bwing is engaged with both the tie and instigator, people will quite easily "short circuit" the rules to "oh, we are engaged, then I can attack the instigator".

Argument ensues.

Any time in a game an argument ensues you are supposed to refer to the rules, yes? In this case, it would be fair to say that you should refer to the engagement rules, as that's the game aspect being argued over. And if you were to do so you'd almost immediately be greeted with this phrase: "When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship." Nothing about the Instigator title supersedes this rule. Thus the Bwing must engage and kill the TIE before it engages the ship.

I think they are trying to say that not everybody will pull out the rulebook and assume they know how the rule is worded.

The warlord situation was different, because their was a gray area, no "if possible" wording, and the question of intent on the rules and how they were designed.

Ha, you have clearly spent no time arguing against opponents while playing any of GW's product lines. FFG's are practically ironclad simplicity-wise in comparison. At the very least FFG's rulebook has answers, and doesn't cause more questions

Like I said, I agree that the intent is likely to let a squadron who engaged with a phantom squadron attack the ship however I can see people arguing that since it is not possible they can't attack (silly, I know)

Thats the thing though...it's not just the intent, it explicitly says it in the rules.

Thats the thing though...it's not just the intent, it explicitly says it in the rules.

It says "if possible" it can be inferred that if it is not possible then you cant attack since you are engaged. That is all I am saying. Someone can make that argument and while they are most likely wrong it is still a thing.

I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on that Lyraeus. There's no room for inferring anything of the sorts.

The rules don't say a squadron "must attack an engaged squadron if possible."

The rules say a squadron "must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than a ship."

Your argument (or, as you put it, the argument that "someone can make") is not "a thing" and it is not "most likely" wrong - it is directly against explicitly written rules.

With all these dice boosters I may need another dice pack:/

With all these dice boosters I may need another dice pack:/

I need a 3rd one as well. . .

My only question about instigator is say you have 2 ships that are both within range 1 of the same squadron, one of them being instigator, and there are no other squadrons in range, would that squadron be able to attack either ship? Or would they have to attack instigator since it would be the one that is "engaging" the enemy squadron?

Either ship is a valid target. There's nothing in the rules or the title card to suggest Instigator should be the preferred target. Simply "an engaged squadron if possible rather than a ship".

EDIT: The following part may be incorrect (thanks ScottieATF), reader discretion is advised.

Eveen in the absence of Instigator, the rules don't force you to shoot at a squadron you are engaged with, simply a squadron that you can attack. So, while engaged by an A-wing, you could still shoot at a B-wing that's obstructed by an asteroid field (you're not engaged with it, but it's still a legal target for your attack).

Either ship is a valid target. There's nothing in the rules or the title card to suggest Instigator should be the preferred target. Simply "a squadron if possible rather than a ship".

Note that, even in the absence of Instigator, the rules don't force you to shoot at a squadron you are engaged with, simply a squadron that you can attack. So, while engaged by an A-wing, you could still shoot at a B-wing that's obstructed by an asteroid field (you're not engaged with it, but it's still a legal target for your attack).

Really? See now THAT seems ridiculous. I thought the whole point of being 'engaged' was you couldn't simply break away to target whatever you want unless your opponent is Heavy.

Either ship is a valid target. There's nothing in the rules or the title card to suggest Instigator should be the preferred target. Simply "a squadron if possible rather than a ship".

Note that, even in the absence of Instigator, the rules don't force you to shoot at a squadron you are engaged with, simply a squadron that you can attack. So, while engaged by an A-wing, you could still shoot at a B-wing that's obstructed by an asteroid field (you're not engaged with it, but it's still a legal target for your attack).

The second part of this incorrect.

The rules do specifically state that you must attack an engaged squadron if possible, not that you must attack a squadron if possible.

PG 6 of the RRG

"When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged

squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship"

Thats the thing though...it's not just the intent, it explicitly says it in the rules.

This clearly is not a concern for some posters as more then a few have displayed a habit for not consulting to out-right discarding what the rules actually say in favor of what they think they are meant to say.

In this matter there are no grounds to infer nor assume that the rules function in a manner contrary to what they say. No ruleset can function if what the rules state is constantly second guessed for no reason.

The argument that, "When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged

squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship" really means, "An engaged squadron can not attack an enemy ship" isn't just unreasonable, it is utterly invalid. The rules on the subject don't say nor mean anywhere near that second statement, and are infact worded in a very specific manner to not say nor mean that second statement.

It's an auto-include on Salvation for me. Reroute circuits are tempting, but I'm not a big fan of giving up the neb-b's evade token. Giving me an extra die on that front arc with no downside is great to me.

This was my immediate thought as well. Honestly, there are only two varieties* of Neb B I think should see play, and this strengthens one of them: Salvation. Basically, Neb B Support + Salvation + Slaved Turrets seems to make perfect sense, as you aren't frequently firing twice with a Neb B anyways (as that would mean you exposed the side), and Salvation is already making the front arc lethal. Adding more red dice to the front means you can potentially be rolling 5 reds with an expected value of 1 damage per die out the front for mid 60s points. That's actually a pretty good ship.

* Yavaris being the other.

No love for Redemption, and its boost to engineering value across the fleet? Combined with a token, it boosts engineering value by 2 in most cases. If you have four ships, that's as many as 8 extra engineering across your fleet per round... or as many as 12 extra shields in rounds 3-5. Add Projection Experts, and you could be doling some of those out, too.

Either ship is a valid target. There's nothing in the rules or the title card to suggest Instigator should be the preferred target. Simply "a squadron if possible rather than a ship".

Note that, even in the absence of Instigator, the rules don't force you to shoot at a squadron you are engaged with, simply a squadron that you can attack. So, while engaged by an A-wing, you could still shoot at a B-wing that's obstructed by an asteroid field (you're not engaged with it, but it's still a legal target for your attack).

The second part of this incorrect.

The rules do specifically state that you must attack an engaged squadron if possible, not that you must attack a squadron if possible.

PG 6 of the RRG

"When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged

squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship"

EDIT: This illustrates the most typical problem people have with this type of rules. We consult them, remember the bits that are relevant to whatever subject you're discussing at the time, and forget the rest - or, at best, remember an abstraction only. So when a new situation comes along, we instinctively tend to use that abstraction ("cannot attack ships") rather than re-reading the rules and checking if the wording interacts any differently with this specific case. Which it often does.

On second (third?) thought... really, it says "rather than a ship", not "rather than any other target". Doesn't that mean the only thing you can't attack, if you can shoot an engaged squadron, is a ship?

Consider this:

Your A-Wing is engaged with one of my TIE Bombers, and a TIE Fighter sits inside an asteroid field also at distance 1 (but not engaged as LOS is obstructed).

Now, what are the restrictions on your attack? The Heavy keyword says "you do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving". Can your A-Wing shoot at my TIE Fighter? Or must it shoot at the TIE Bomber because it's the only one it's engaged with?

In the situation you are describing your legal targets would be any enemy ship in range or the TIE Bomber you are engaged with, you could not attack the TIE Fighter you are not engaged with because as you noted Heavy specifically allows for ships not ships or non-engaged squadrons.

Are you certain?

Where does the "rather than enemy ships" qualifier come into play in that case? It sounds like you're interpreting it as "rather than any other target", which isn't what it says...

(for the record, I'm not arguing whether the intent of the rules is or should be one or another, I'm trying to understand what they actually say)