So the instigator title makes squads count as engaged by two. Presumably to counter grit.

However , my question is: example scenario two x wings adjacent to instigator. No other ships or squads near. Can the squads attack the raider? They count as engaged.....but does that mean they can't attack? If they can't, that title is epic.... If they can attack the raider...it's still tough, but less so.

The engage rule says they must attack an enemy squad "if possible".... Does that mean if not possible to attack an enemy squad, then they are ALLOWED to attack a ship even whilst engaged?

Thoughts?

The question has been asked previously and submitted to FFG - we are still waiting on that new Wave 2 FAQ stuff...

This was a very heavily debated one, and I think DiabloAzul already got half of it answered in a response, but I think things kept going around in circles...

I will say that I am fairly certain that the squadron could attack the raider so I would play it like that.

However as mentioned above there. Is ! Grey area

It can attack the Raider:

There is an extreme probability that Green Knight is correct, and that squadrons can attach the Instigator. The agreement is near unanimous, and the rules seem pretty clear.

There is just enough gray area where I could see a remote chance that FFG will slide the other way, but until they release the FAQ the safest bet is to rule that they can.

For it to be ruled otherwise FFG would actually need to errata that portion of the RRG.

They could interpret "if possible" in some zany way. Like I said, there's basically no question about the intended interaction.

FWIW:

Rules Question:
Dear Armada gurus: I have a question regarding the Engagement rules on p.6, specifically the following bullet point: "When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship." It is clear that a squadron can't shoot at a ship if it could attack an engaged squadron instead. However, can the squadron shoot at a squadron that it is NOT engaged with (due to obstruction)? See for example the image here: http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii188/EvilKobra/Armada/Miscellaneous/if%20possible.jpg Can the TIE Interceptor attack the X-wing? In fact, can it choose to not attack at all? Or is the "must attack an engaged squadron if possible" absolute?

Excellent question! The rule that you quoted is only intended to protect ships, allowing players to establish fighter screens as long as those squadrons aren’t on the wrong side of the ship or buried in an obstacle. In your example, the TIE interceptor can attack the X-wing. Additionally, since the TIE interceptor is not engaged with the X-wing, the X-wing’s escort keyword cannot protect the A-wing.

To your second point, squadrons are never required to perform attacks. When a squadron activates, it can attack or move (or both if activated by a squadron command), but it is not required to do so. For example, a squadron can activate and choose to do nothing in order to avoid being counterattacked.

It's a different question, but it does shed some light on the "proper" interpretation of that rules passage, which is simply:

"If a squadron can attack a squadron it is engaged with, it cannot attack any other target."

In the OP's case, since the X-wings cannot attack one of the engaging phantom squadrons (because they're not there), they can attack the Instigator or indeed any other target (including other ships, or nearby squadrons with Heavy).

If close to the Instigator and a squad with heavy though, are you not required to attack the heavy squad (or not attack at all)? You are engaged (by some thing else then the heavy squad), so the rule about attacking an engaged squad if possible is in effect. Heavy doesn't say you are not engaged, only that it doesn't prevent attacks on ships or moving. But in this case it is the phantom squads that prevent you from attacking other targets then squads.

Allso, The rule say you have to attack an "engeged squadron" not a suqdron egeged with you.

So...

Squad A is engaged with squad B.

Squad C is in range of Squad A.

There is an obstruction between squad A and C so they are not engeged.

Squad C is engeged with squad D.

Can squad A now attack squad C?

...this reminds me of the stacking ships during deployment discussion.

I can only assume Smuggler is playing devil's advocate as opposed to making a serious argument, but I'll engage (heh) anyway:

If close to the Instigator and a squad with heavy though, are you not required to attack the heavy squad (or not attack at all)? You are engaged (by some thing else then the heavy squad), so the rule about attacking an engaged squad if possible is in effect. Heavy doesn't say you are not engaged, only that it doesn't prevent attacks on ships or moving. But in this case it is the phantom squads that prevent you from attacking other targets then squads.

The presence of a heavy squadron, as per the definition of heavy, cannot in any way be responsible for preventing you from attacking a ship that you would otherwise be able to attack.

Allso, The rule say you have to attack an "engeged squadron" not a suqdron egeged with you.
So...
Squad A is engaged with squad B.
Squad C is in range of Squad A.
There is an obstruction between squad A and C so they are not engeged.
Squad C is engeged with squad D.

Can squad A now attack squad C?

This is exactly the question that was asked to FFG, and the answer is presented above.

EDIT: Well, almost exactly as there is no D in the original question. But it makes no difference unless you interpret "engaged" in an absurdly narrow manner. Applying the same interpretation consistently would result in, for example, the A-Wing and the TIE Interceptor in the image linked above not being engaged to each other, because "If line of sight between two squadrons [X-Wing and TIE] is obstructed, those squadrons are not engaged [it doesn't say "with each other" so it must mean "with anyone", right?] even if at distance 1 of each other, though they can still attack each other."

Ok, I reread the mail responce from FFG and I admit I got the wrong conclution first time. So if I got it right now, the engagement rule could be rewriten as "When an engaged squadron attacks, it must attack a squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship." to comply with FFGs intent for it?

As for my first point about heavy squads, mabye I'm just to tired to think straight but...

Squad A is at distance 1 of a ship, and engeged by squad B and C, and C is heavy.

Can A attack the ship? I'm thinking no as B would prevent it.

Can A attack C? I'm thinking yes as it is free to attack an engaged squad (or any squad according to the FFG mail), and it is engaged with C.

Now replace B with instigator.

C is still a valid target, so attacking a squad is possible.

B (the fake suqads of instigator) doesn't have the heavy key word. So the rules say I must attack a squadron if possible (rather than a ship). And low and behold it is possible to attack a squadron.

I guess I'm having a hard time parsing who exactly is preventing the attack on the ship. Obviously the heavy squad can not prevent it on it's own. And the non existing squads can not prevent it on their own (it would not be possible to attack a squadron).

But when both are present together, it looks to me like the fake squadrons are the ones preventing the attack on the ship. The heavy squadron just happen to present a valid target to enable the prevention.

But then again, if C was not there, it would be possible to attack the ship and so the precense of C would prevent it, which it can not do as it's heavy... and I'm back to square one... I should just go sleep now... Probobly should have done that befor posting this and probobly making an ass of my self, but oh well

Ok, I reread the mail responce from FFG and I admit I got the wrong conclution first time. So if I got it right now, the engagement rule could be rewriten as "When an engaged squadron attacks, it must attack a squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship." to comply with FFGs intent for it?

As for my first point about heavy squads, mabye I'm just to tired to think straight but...

Squad A is at distance 1 of a ship, and engeged by squad B and C, and C is heavy.

Can A attack the ship? I'm thinking no as B would prevent it.

Can A attack C? I'm thinking yes as it is free to attack an engaged squad (or any squad according to the FFG mail), and it is engaged with C.

Now replace B with instigator.

C is still a valid target, so attacking a squad is possible.

B (the fake suqads of instigator) doesn't have the heavy key word. So the rules say I must attack a squadron if possible (rather than a ship). And low and behold it is possible to attack a squadron.

I guess I'm having a hard time parsing who exactly is preventing the attack on the ship. Obviously the heavy squad can not prevent it on it's own. And the non existing squads can not prevent it on their own (it would not be possible to attack a squadron).

But when both are present together, it looks to me like the fake squadrons are the ones preventing the attack on the ship. The heavy squadron just happen to present a valid target to enable the prevention.

But then again, if C was not there, it would be possible to attack the ship and so the precense of C would prevent it, which it can not do as it's heavy... and I'm back to square one... I should just go sleep now... Probobly should have done that befor posting this and probobly making an ass of my self, but oh well

There are no "fake squadrons". Throw that right out.

You're making this far too complicated.

If you are "engaged" by Instigator and Instigator alone, the ONLY thing it does it lock you down. You can attack the ship freely since there is no squadron to attack.

Similarly, a Heavy squadron would not prevent you from firing on a ship.

The ONLY way you can be prevented from firing on the Instigator is if you are simultaneously engaged by another non-heavy squadron. The purpose of this is to lock down squadrons with Grit, primarily.

So far, I've found the title of dubious use.

The engage rule says they must attack an enemy squad "if possible".... Does that mean if not possible to attack an enemy squad, then they are ALLOWED to attack a ship even whilst engaged?

You are correct, the "if possible" is the keyword that allows the squadrons to attack the raider if there is no enemy squadron to engage.

The engage rule says they must attack an enemy squad "if possible".... Does that mean if not possible to attack an enemy squad, then they are ALLOWED to attack a ship even whilst engaged?

You are correct, the "if possible" is the keyword that allows the squadrons to attack the raider if there is no enemy squadron to engage.

There is 2 side about what that "if possible" means.

Some people think it means "if you can't attack a squadron, then you are allowed to attack a ship".

Some people think you still can't attack the ship and the "if possible" is just there to prevent a dead-end if the rule was worded "When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron rather than an enemy ship" while there was no squadron to attack because you could no start step 1 of the attack.

So until we get an official answer, both cases are possible.

There is 2 side about what that "if possible" means.

And one of them is blatantly incorrect according to the rules of the English language.

There is 2 side about what that "if possible" means.

And one of them is blatantly incorrect according to the rules of the English language.

Easy there, space-tiger. While I agree with you that one option is far more likely to be the intended interpertation, I find both options linguisticaly valid.

There is 2 side about what that "if possible" means.

And one of them is blatantly incorrect according to the rules of the English language.

I remember something along this line being stated in the "AP vs XI7" debate, and we all see how that turned out. There is enough gray area to have 2 different interpretations

Until we receive official response from FFG, I will play that the squadrons would be able to attack the raider.

Kind of related, came up last night. If it is engaged with fighters, and then a Tie fighter moves in does the Tie get its swarm as the enemy fighter is already engaged?

Kind of related, came up last night. If it is engaged with fighters, and then a Tie fighter moves in does the Tie get its swarm as the enemy fighter is already engaged?

No. Swarm specifies another squadron.

"

Kind of related, came up last night. If it is engaged with fighters, and then a Tie fighter moves in does the Tie get its swarm as the enemy fighter is already engaged?

No. Swarm specifies another squadron.

And Instigator states 2 additional squadrons .

So, again, we're at that language impasse and must wait for Clarification.

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

Swarm : (While attacking a squadron engaged with another squadron, you may reroll 1 die.)

I think I would have to give them the reroll.

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

Swarm : (While attacking a squadron engaged with another squadron, you may reroll 1 die.)

I think I would have to give them the reroll.

That's....

Huh...

I can't disagree.

You treat the squadron *as if it were engaged by 2 additional squadrons*... and if it were engaged by another squadron, swarm would activate so...

The Instigator's ability doesn't specify only working in cases of grit, so I don't see why it wouldn't interact with Swarm. Even thematically, it makes some sense that your TIE fighter would benefit from the nearby corvette blasting away at the same squadron.

"

Kind of related, came up last night. If it is engaged with fighters, and then a Tie fighter moves in does the Tie get its swarm as the enemy fighter is already engaged?

No. Swarm specifies another squadron.

And Instigator states 2 additional squadrons .

So, again, we're at that language impasse and must wait for Clarification.

I would have to say in this case, swarm would activate. Swarm just specifies another squadron, and instigator is treated as 2 squadrons.

I was on the verge of posting a correction, too, but it seems to check out.

Plus I'm not nearly as rules-y as most of you.