So the Instigator title on a Raider reads that enemy squadrons at distance 1 are treated as though they are engaged by 2 additional squadrons. Suppose I fly my Instigator into range 1 of 2 of your X-Wings. And also suppose I have a Star Destroyer on the other side of the X-Wings, also at range 1 of them.

Initially I thought it would force the X-Wings to fight the Raider.... but It doesn't say they are engaged WITH the Raider.... just that they are engaged. If I have no squadrons for them to shoot at, can they still shoot the Star Destroyer? I would assume in this case they could shoot whomever they want, but they just can't MOVE.

I'm surprised that no one else seems to read the Instigator title like I do, that being engaged by these phantom squadrons keeps the actual squadrons from moving or attacking. The rules reference is pretty clear that an engaged squadron can only attack squadrons it is engaged with, so it seems like the X-wings in your example would simply be stuck until the probably-not-stationary Raider moves past them.

The balancing factor to the Instigator title is that the enemy squadrons will be pinned to the floor while the ship has to keep moving or forfeit the use of its defense tokens. Am I wrong in this reading?

EDIT: I see in the thread about Raider titles being any good that there's a general understanding that the squadrons aren't prevented from attacking. I don't really get the logic here, but it seems to have been widely discussed already. Sorry to beat a dead horse.

IIRC the unoffcial errata makes it so the squadrons are engaged with the Instigator. So they can't attack the Star Destroyer but can make bombing runs on the Instigator.

Engaged squadrons must attack enemy squadrons IF POSSIBLE. If that's not possible, they can bomb the Instigator (or in the example, the Star Destroyer) to slag. It's not nearly so good as some people read it to be but it has its place.

It is more to mess with Grit and Intel then anything.

IIRC the unofficial errata makes it so the squadrons are engaged with the Instigator. So they can't attack the Star Destroyer but can make bombing runs on the Instigator.

Not so useful.

I'm surprised that no one else seems to read the Instigator title like I do,

That's because (as Snapafist mentions) the rules are pretty clear that the engaged squadrons must attack other squadrons if possible. If there are no other squadrons, then it is not possible for the pinned squadrons to attack them and so the pinned squadrons are free to attack anybody.

In fact, I believe the rule says they must attack enemy squadrons they are engaged with, if possible. Which means if the only squadrons they can attack are obstructed (and thus not engaged with them), they can still attack ships.

Thanks for the posts. I agree that they are free to attack either ship in this case. I also would agree that they cannot MOVE, because they are engaged.

The general IDEA with this title is that you lock down some squadrons BEFORE they get in range of your star destroyer, so you'd more often than not, have them firing on the Instigator (Or on squadrons escorting the instigator).

The general IDEA with this title is that you lock down some squadrons BEFORE they get in range of your star destroyer, so you'd more often than not, have them firing on the Instigator (Or on squadrons escorting the instigator).

i would think the thing to do would be to have the instigator moving speed 4 and save it to activate last so that it can shoot forward and lock down a bunch of the enemy squadrons with no opportunity for another of his ships to possibly destroy the instigator that turn, then his squadrons are unable to advance for a round, disrupting his strategy. Then, if the instigator survives the fighter assault, it moves past them and swings around to harry the back sides of his fleet. Even better if you can position so that the instigator is only locking down half his squadrons, forcing him to decide whether to split them into 2 groups of have all of them delayed, while only half of them get to shoot at you.

Necro'd!

(Since I haven't been able to find a discussion of this particular point anywhere else on the forums, and a topic entitled "Instigator" seems like the appropriate place to raise this so I don't lose it in the future).

So... in an effort to mitigate the crazy anti-ship damage that is an X-wing Bomber horde supported by Jan's Intel ability, I'm looking heavily at Instigator again. Here's the scenario I'm interested in:

• Jan and four X-wings are en-route to attack my ISD (which is big and powerful and all, but I'd rather not take five additional dice worth of damage to it every round if I can avoid it).
• I have a fighter swarm (we'll go with generic TIE fighters, maybe a couple interceptors), but since the enemy has Intel, I don't want to over-extend them and then have the rebels fly right through them en-route to the ISD.
• Instigator is in position to activate a couple of fighters, and then jump within distance 1 of the X's and Jan.

My plan is to jump the X's and Jan with a couple TIEs to engage them, then with the Instigator to pin them in place so the rest of my squads can swarm them without fear that they'll leave, even though my squads will be within Jan's Intel bubble. I'm quite confident the X's and Jan can't move at this point (see second paragraph of the recent FAQ on Instigator, p. 7), but I'm worried about available targets. So my question is this: If Instigator is within distance 1 of Jan and supporting X-wings, and is surrounded by TIE fighters that are within distance 1 of Jan, can the X-wings (which are now stationary due to Instigator) shoot at the Instigator, or must they still shoot at the TIEs (which are now Heavy, because they are within Jan's Intel bubble)?

Some key terms for review:

• Engagement (RRG p. 6). While a squadron is at distance 1 of one or more enemy squadrons, it is engaged with all of those enemy squadrons.
  • An engaged squadron cannot move.
  • When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship.
• Intel. (While an enemy squadron is at distance 1 of you, it has Heavy.)
• Heavy. (You do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving.)
  • Note also that Heavy squadrons can and do engage squadrons within distance 1 (and in fact prevent Grit from triggering, per the new Squadron FAQ on page 4).

What I want the Instigator title to do is to hold Intel-supported squadrons in place around the Raider, so they can't buzz off and attack my ISD, and so my other squadrons can attack them during the round they are pinned down. What I'm afraid of is that if I do jump the enemy squadrons with my Instigator, it will hold them in place, but they'll only be engaged by Heavy squadrons (due to Intel), which means the Rebels can ignore my TIEs (which would normally screen the Instigator from bomber fire), and shoot at the Instigator. While I'd rather take bomber dice on a cheap Raider than an expensive ISD, I'd much rather the even-cheaper TIEs take the brunt of the combat.

Now I think the most recent FAQ may address this indirectly, in its clarification on Instigator, which says "Squadrons can attack this ship if they are not engaged by an actual enemy squadron in the play area" (FAQ v. 2, p. 7). The FAQ clearly states, I think, that in the scenario described above, the X-wings could attack Instigator if they are not actually engaged by any real squadrons of mine; but if they are actually engaged by enemy squadrons (in the scenario described above, now-Heavy TIE fighters), then I think the implication of the FAQ is that the X-wings would have to attack the TIEs, even though they're heavy, because the X-wings are treated as engaged (and therefore have to attack an engaged enemy squadron, if possible--even if it is Heavy).

So that's my question: are enemy squadrons within range of Instigator compelled to attack Heavy squadrons with whom they are engaged, before they can attack Instigator itself? If so, is it for the reasons I think it is, or something else? And if not, why not (other than the fact that it seems completely counter-intuitive...but for the fact that Instigator, itself, is a counter-intuitive rule-bending sort of card)?

Would appreciate any feedback.

(And thanks to Crabbok for the thread to necro )

Oh god Ryth... Why? What have you done?

Oh god Ryth... Why? What have you done?

I'm trying to prevent yet another Instigator thread from popping up. And solve a galaxy-wide crisis.

(And maybe sow some discord and paranoia, too. Is it working? )

My take...

Assume an x wing within engagement of a tie bomber and instigator.

Instigator makes it so the xx wing cannot move.... Next

X wing is also engaged by an actual squadron....next

That particular squadron also has heavy....next

X wing cannot move, but can choose to fire at either the bomber or the instigator.

I really don't think it's confusing. We are just going too far with the analysis.

So the X-Wings have bombers that naturally have HEAVY, TIEs which gain Heavy due to Jan (assuming she's in the middle and is hitting each TIE), and the Instigator.

I would think the X-Wings can choose ANY target in this situation. Heavy doesn't restrict firing, and the only thing keeping them from moving is the Instigator.

And BTW there's nothing wrong with necroing a thread in this manner, because the discussion is relevant, A new thread would have also worked IMO because you are allowed to create a new thread once a certain degree of time has passed.

So the X-Wings have bombers that naturally have HEAVY, TIEs which gain Heavy due to Jan (assuming she's in the middle and is hitting each TIE), and the Instigator.

I would think the X-Wings can choose ANY target in this situation. Heavy doesn't restrict firing, and the only thing keeping them from moving is the Instigator.

And BTW there's nothing wrong with necroing a thread in this manner, because the discussion is relevant, A new thread would have also worked IMO because you are allowed to create a new thread once a certain degree of time has passed.

There's a pretty long discussion on more or less this issue in rules discussion, in which pretty much all the relevant arguments have been beaten unto death. Now they shall rise again to feast on the flesh of the living, and all shall rue their rising.

Looking to stop another Thread from Cropping up by having another Long-Dead Thread Cropping up

We're still waiting on FFG's response from the "Rules Questions" Instigator and Squadrons Thread...

I don't believe its very material having a front-page question for it with all the hate and rage (and there has been that) flowing through other threads on the matter...

But, good luck to you.

I'll just leave this here before I woop woop woop out of this thread...

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/196251-heavy-fighters-screened-by-a-raider-with-instigator-title/

I'll just leave this here before I woop woop woop out of this thread...

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/196251-heavy-fighters-screened-by-a-raider-with-instigator-title/

Doh!

Missed that one somehow. Silly me.

I shall peruse those responses and leave this thread to die.

Edit: So, having read (most of) the above thread, I feel quite sheepish. I had somehow missed this thread (not sure how, as I always check out threads that reach 3+ pages, plus the interaction between Instigator and Intel has been of interest to me for a while). I also ran a forum search before posting, but apparently didn't include the right search terms. My bad on both counts, sorry about that (and for the "discord and paranoia" comment above--I meant it only with reference to necroing dead threads, without knowledge of how, um, heated, the other conversation had gotten).

FWIW, it seems like the FAQ has had the confusing effect on others it had on me, and there's obviously enough room for disagreement that an official answer would be of use. So I'll just leave things there for the time being. Thanks for those who posted (and to Mad, for being a good sport in the midst of my ignorance ).