Yeah, I think it's probably for the best for everyone to just walk away from the thread at this point and simply admit that there's no way we can know for certain until FFG officially FAQs it. The good news is that this situation is in general fairly unlikely to turn up (and should it happen in a game I'm playing I'd simply dice for it and then just apply that result consistently throughout the game).

Jeeze I didn't mean for this thread to explode like this.

This situation does come up a good bit as tie bombers are a common squadron to have and the raider is starting to become quite popular...

Yeah, I think it's probably for the best for everyone to just walk away from the thread at this point and simply admit that there's no way we can know for certain until FFG officially FAQs it. The good news is that this situation is in general fairly unlikely to turn up (and should it happen in a game I'm playing I'd simply dice for it and then just apply that result consistently throughout the game).

Jeeze I didn't mean for this thread to explode like this.

This situation does come up a good bit as tie bombers are a common squadron to have and the raider is starting to become quite popular...

If you are playing casually, it's probably best to come up with a consensus, if you can locally (or flip a coin.)

Otherwise your local TOs can set the tone, too.

Yeah, I think it's probably for the best for everyone to just walk away from the thread at this point and simply admit that there's no way we can know for certain until FFG officially FAQs it. The good news is that this situation is in general fairly unlikely to turn up (and should it happen in a game I'm playing I'd simply dice for it and then just apply that result consistently throughout the game).

Jeeze I didn't mean for this thread to explode like this.

This situation does come up a good bit as tie bombers are a common squadron to have and the raider is starting to become quite popular...

If you are playing casually, it's probably best to come up with a consensus, if you can locally (or flip a coin.)

Otherwise your local TOs can set the tone, too.

Unless "this situation" is something other then the topic of this thread, we have an FAQ ruling on it already.

Let's think of it another way. Engaged is a Condition applied by squadrons to enemy squadrons at distance 1.

If you are causing an enemy to be Engaged you apply the following effects to them:

A: Movement Debuff

B: Targeting restriction

C: You are said to be Engaged.

Heavy Squadrons still cause enemies to be Engaged, minus effects A and B.

So let's replace Engaged with Poisoned - and let's call Engaged (Normal) Poison 1, and Engaged (Heavy) Poison 2. If you are suffering the effects of both Poison 1 and Poison 2, and you are only able to interact with the entity that gave you Poison 2, you still cannot ignore the effects of Poison 1.

What the hell? You guys said you left! I was gonna walk around the thread naked eating chips!

You jerks are stealing christmas.

I'm still here. Just lurking. Waiting for the clothes to come off.

What the hell? You guys said you left! I was gonna walk around the thread naked eating chips!

You jerks are stealing christmas.

https://youtu.be/UuQZfwWyTWY

So let's replace Engaged with Poisoned - and let's call Engaged (Normal) Poison 1, and Engaged (Heavy) Poison 2. If you are suffering the effects of both Poison 1 and Poison 2, and you are only able to interact with the entity that gave you Poison 2, you still cannot ignore the effects of Poison 1.

Ok, back to the quote.

First off this is confusing as all hell because you don't have to "only interact" with the "poison 2 (heavy)". Heavy states that.

As per the FAQ,which I think is perfectly clear on RAI.

FAQ

"INSTIGATOR

Squadrons can attack this ship if they are not engaged by an actual enemy squadron in the play area.

The Intel keyword does not affect this ship’s ability."

Wow, how did I miss that in the FAQ. Game-set-match.

Thank you Lyr.

So let's replace Engaged with Poisoned - and let's call Engaged (Normal) Poison 1, and Engaged (Heavy) Poison 2. If you are suffering the effects of both Poison 1 and Poison 2, and you are only able to interact with the entity that gave you Poison 2, you still cannot ignore the effects of Poison 1.

I am sorry DerErlkoenig but this little thing will drag me in for just a tiny bit.

Ok, back to the quote.

First off this is confusing as all hell because you don't have to "only interact" with the "poison 2 (heavy)". Heavy states that.

As per the FAQ,which I think is perfectly clear on RAI.

FAQ

"INSTIGATOR

Squadrons can attack this ship if they are not engaged by an actual enemy squadron in the play area.

The Intel keyword does not affect this ship’s ability."

The point has been made earlier, that Heavy Squadrons do Engage, which leads to the Grit ruling in the FAQ. So technically that clarification of Instigator in the FAQ doesn't necessarily affect our scenario - just clarifies that if there are no actual Squadrons around then Instigator is a legal target for attack by a Squadron. That is perfectly within the language of "must attack an engaged squadron if possible" - it is impossible, therefore the Squadron can attack the ship. I completely agree with this ruling.

The question comes up now that there is a Heavy Squadron nearby - it is an eligible target therefore satisfying the "attack an engaged squadron if possible" from Instigator's Engagement.

I do agree, that being forced to attack a Heavy Squadron in the OP scenario is a little dumb - I'm just trying to get at the correct interpretation. These dumb anti-thematic rules interactions just amuse me.

Looks like we're back to waiting for a ruling.

So let's replace Engaged with Poisoned - and let's call Engaged (Normal) Poison 1, and Engaged (Heavy) Poison 2. If you are suffering the effects of both Poison 1 and Poison 2, and you are only able to interact with the entity that gave you Poison 2, you still cannot ignore the effects of Poison 1.

I am sorry DerErlkoenig but this little thing will drag me in for just a tiny bit.

Ok, back to the quote.

First off this is confusing as all hell because you don't have to "only interact" with the "poison 2 (heavy)". Heavy states that.

As per the FAQ,which I think is perfectly clear on RAI.

FAQ

"INSTIGATOR

Squadrons can attack this ship if they are not engaged by an actual enemy squadron in the play area.

The Intel keyword does not affect this ship’s ability."

The point has been made earlier, that Heavy Squadrons do Engage, which leads to the Grit ruling in the FAQ. So technically that clarification of Instigator in the FAQ doesn't necessarily affect our scenario - just clarifies that if there are no actual Squadrons around then Instigator is a legal target for attack by a Squadron. That is perfectly within the language of "must attack an engaged squadron if possible" - it is impossible, therefore the Squadron can attack the ship. I completely agree with this ruling.

The question comes up now that there is a Heavy Squadron nearby - it is an eligible target therefore satisfying the "attack an engaged squadron if possible" from Instigator's Engagement.

I do agree, that being forced to attack a Heavy Squadron in the OP scenario is a little dumb - I'm just trying to get at the correct interpretation. These dumb anti-thematic rules interactions just amuse me.

Looks like we're back to waiting for a ruling.

I am also open to a rules as intended ruling by FFG in favor of allowinng enemy squadrons to bypass a bomber in this scenario, but I feel like this ruling really makes it hard to come away with anything else as RAW.

I guess I should probably put my pants back on now that this thread is once again a piblic thoroughfare.

It also, in my mind, negates the "card effect trumps base rules" argument, as we now have an explicitly worded ruling on another card effect in play. The grit discussion is attempting to form a corollary from a different card effect ruling.

It's nowhere near the first time that the FAQ addresses interactions between two card effects. If anything, that reinforces The Golden Rule: a contradiction between two card effects needs "arbitration", whereas an interaction between a card effect and general rules does not (the card wins).

Anyway, the Poison 1 and Poison 2 example is not really valid. The X-Wing is not somehow engaged in two different ways, one of which can be ignored. The X-Wing is engaged , full stop. The number and nature of engaging squadrons is irrelevant for the Engagement rule under discussion. If the X-Wing is engaged, the rule applies. The Heavy keyword doesn't create a new type of "poor man's engagement". It simply states that the TIE Bomber does not prevent the X-Wing from attacking a ship (i.e. if in the TIE Bomber's absence it could, then it can).

Some of you have argued that it's actually Instigator's phantom squadrons which prevent the X-Wing from attacking the ship, but that's simply not true: if the TIE Bomber weren't there, the X-Wing would be perfectly free to shoot - I think this was already agreed before, but it is also explicitly addressed by the FAQ. So if (following your logic) by adding the TIE Bomber to the fray we give the X-Wing a valid squadron target which must be attacked if possible... then it's definitely the TIE Bomber which is preventing the attack against Instigator! In direct, clear-cut contradiction with the Heavy keyword.

Forget Instigator for a moment. If an X-Wing is engaged with a TIE Bomber and nothing else, it has a valid squadron target which must be attacked if possible - up until Heavy overrides that. Now add those phantom squadrons. What has changed? Nothing: the X-Wing was already engaged, was already instructed by the rules to look for a valid target, had already found one, and the keyword had already overridden it.

EDIT: I had resolved to abandon this thread to its fate, but... I'm kinda bored right now

FAQ's are clarifications of the official rules so that people have a common ground to use.

What the hell? You guys said you left! I was gonna walk around the thread naked eating chips!

You jerks are stealing christmas.

Aaaahhhh!!!! my eyes!!!

What the hell? You guys said you left! I was gonna walk around the thread naked eating chips!

You jerks are stealing christmas.

https:/youtu.be/UuQZfwWyTWY

no waaaay am I clicking THAT link!

1st check engagements... I am engage with 3 squadrons (1 heavy 2 phantom) so engagement rule apply. I can't shoot a ship unless I couldn't shoot a squadron. Heavy doesn't prevent me for shooting ships but the phantoms does. If we read the faq and the answer they did before we realizability that the reason is not the the phantoms are heavy. Is that the phantoms couldn't be targets. As long as they are not heavy I must shoot a squadron if I can. Could I? Yes. Heavy doesn't say that you can't shoot him. It says that you are not prevented for shooting ships but I am already prevented for this thanks to the phantoms so I must shot a squadron and I can so can't shoot ships.

If the phantoms don't prevent you for shooting ships in this situation we must intend that they are heavy too.

If heavy said "squadrons engaged with you are not forced to shoot you" it could be different but...

Anyway I am not the best taking about the rules but for me is pretty clear since someone publish the answer and then they put it in the faq

It also, in my mind, negates the "card effect trumps base rules" argument, as we now have an explicitly worded ruling on another card effect in play. The grit discussion is attempting to form a corollary from a different card effect ruling.

It's nowhere near the first time that the FAQ addresses interactions between two card effects. If anything, that reinforces The Golden Rule: a contradiction between two card effects needs "arbitration", whereas an interaction between a card effect and general rules does not (the card wins).

Anyway, the Poison 1 and Poison 2 example is not really valid. The X-Wing is not somehow engaged in two different ways, one of which can be ignored. The X-Wing is engaged , full stop. The number and nature of engaging squadrons is irrelevant for the Engagement rule under discussion. If the X-Wing is engaged, the rule applies. The Heavy keyword doesn't create a new type of "poor man's engagement". It simply states that the TIE Bomber does not prevent the X-Wing from attacking a ship (i.e. if in the TIE Bomber's absence it could, then it can).

Some of you have argued that it's actually Instigator's phantom squadrons which prevent the X-Wing from attacking the ship, but that's simply not true: if the TIE Bomber weren't there, the X-Wing would be perfectly free to shoot - I think this was already agreed before, but it is also explicitly addressed by the FAQ. So if (following your logic) by adding the TIE Bomber to the fray we give the X-Wing a valid squadron target which must be attacked if possible... then it's definitely the TIE Bomber which is preventing the attack against Instigator! In direct, clear-cut contradiction with the Heavy keyword.

Forget Instigator for a moment. If an X-Wing is engaged with a TIE Bomber and nothing else, it has a valid squadron target which must be attacked if possible - up until Heavy overrides that. Now add those phantom squadrons. What has changed? Nothing: the X-Wing was already engaged, was already instructed by the rules to look for a valid target, had already found one, and the keyword had already overridden it.

EDIT: I had resolved to abandon this thread to its fate, but... I'm kinda bored right now

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7R6_Chr2vro

Some of you have argued that it's actually Instigator's phantom squadrons which prevent the X-Wing from attacking the ship, but that's simply not true: if the TIE Bomber weren't there, the X-Wing would be perfectly free to shoot - I think this was already agreed before, but it is also explicitly addressed by the FAQ. So if (following your logic) by adding the TIE Bomber to the fray we give the X-Wing a valid squadron target which must be attacked if possible... then it's definitely the TIE Bomber which is preventing the attack against Instigator! In direct, clear-cut contradiction with the Heavy keyword.

Forget Instigator for a moment. If an X-Wing is engaged with a TIE Bomber and nothing else, it has a valid squadron target which must be attacked if possible - up until Heavy overrides that. Now add those phantom squadrons. What has changed? Nothing: the X-Wing was already engaged, was already instructed by the rules to look for a valid target, had already found one, and the keyword had already overridden it.

EDIT: I had resolved to abandon this thread to its fate, but... I'm kinda bored right now

Here we get to the heart of it. Everyone agrees that Heavy's text is eternal and its effect is always in play. The question is now who is doing the preventing - the Squadron or the Instigator? Using your argument about the TIE Bomber being the entity that prevents the ship from being targeted:

I refer back to the another FAQ ruling now:

GRIT

You are not prevented from moving while you are engaged by only 1 squadron.

and the FAQ Ruling for Grit:

Q: Is a squadron with grit prevented from moving while engaged with two squadrons, one with heavy and one without heavy?

A: Yes

In the Grit ruling, the TIE Bomber's presence also prevents the Grit Squadron's movement, "In direct, clear-cut contradiction with the Heavy keyword."

So we now have a case where more than one instance of the term "Engaged" can contradict the Heavy keyword's abilities. Now I go to the FAQ Ruling for Instigator:

Instigator

Squadrons can attack this ship if they are not engaged by an actual enemy squadron in the play area.

The intel keyword does not affect this ship’s ability.

We know that TIE Bombers cause Engagement. If this ruling is true, then the corollary opposite wording for this ruling is that "Squadrons cannot attack this ship if they are engaged by an actual enemy squadron in the play area."

Given precedent and current rulings, I stand by my argument that you can be forced, as dumb as it sounds, to attack the Heavy squadron.

Some of you have argued that it's actually Instigator's phantom squadrons which prevent the X-Wing from attacking the ship, but that's simply not true: if the TIE Bomber weren't there, the X-Wing would be perfectly free to shoot - I think this was already agreed before, but it is also explicitly addressed by the FAQ. So if (following your logic) by adding the TIE Bomber to the fray we give the X-Wing a valid squadron target which must be attacked if possible... then it's definitely the TIE Bomber which is preventing the attack against Instigator! In direct, clear-cut contradiction with the Heavy keyword.

Forget Instigator for a moment. If an X-Wing is engaged with a TIE Bomber and nothing else, it has a valid squadron target which must be attacked if possible - up until Heavy overrides that. Now add those phantom squadrons. What has changed? Nothing: the X-Wing was already engaged, was already instructed by the rules to look for a valid target, had already found one, and the keyword had already overridden it.

EDIT: I had resolved to abandon this thread to its fate, but... I'm kinda bored right now

Here we get to the heart of it. Everyone agrees that Heavy's text is eternal and its effect is always in play. The question is now who is doing the preventing - the Squadron or the Instigator? Using your argument about the TIE Bomber being the entity that prevents the ship from being targeted:

I refer back to the another FAQ ruling now:

GRIT

You are not prevented from moving while you are engaged by only 1 squadron.

and the FAQ Ruling for Grit:

Q: Is a squadron with grit prevented from moving while engaged with two squadrons, one with heavy and one without heavy?

A: Yes

In the Grit ruling, the TIE Bomber's presence also prevents the Grit Squadron's movement, "In direct, clear-cut contradiction with the Heavy keyword."

So we now have a case where the term "Engaged" can contradict the Heavy keyword's abilities. Now I go to the FAQ Ruling for Instigator:

Instigator

Squadrons can attack this ship if they are not engaged by an actual enemy squadron in the play area.

The intel keyword does not affect this ship’s ability.

We know that TIE Bombers cause Engagement. If this ruling is true, then the corollary opposite wording for this ruling is that "Squadrons cannot attack this ship if they are engaged by an actual enemy squadron in the play area."

Given precedent and current rulings, I stand by my argument that you can be forced, as dumb as it sounds, to attack the Heavy squadron.

You do realize that Heavy does not prevent being engaged right? You do know ow that if a TIE Fighter and a TIE Bomber are within distance 1 of another squadron that the TIE Fighter gets to use its swarm right?

That is why Grit works that way, you are engaged by things with heavy. Seems super simple.

You do realize that Heavy does not prevent being engaged right? You do know ow that if a TIE Fighter and a TIE Bomber are within distance 1 of another squadron that the TIE Fighter gets to use its swarm right?

That is why Grit works that way, you are engaged by things with heavy. Seems super simple.

Yeah. No one is arguing that point. I said in my post, "TIE Bombers cause engagement."

You do realize that Heavy does not prevent being engaged right? You do know ow that if a TIE Fighter and a TIE Bomber are within distance 1 of another squadron that the TIE Fighter gets to use its swarm right?That is why Grit works that way, you are engaged by things with heavy. Seems super simple.

Yeah. No one is arguing that point. I said in my post, "TIE Bombers cause engagement."

So a Bomber negating Grit doesn't contradict Heavy at all.

You do realize that Heavy does not prevent being engaged right? You do know ow that if a TIE Fighter and a TIE Bomber are within distance 1 of another squadron that the TIE Fighter gets to use its swarm right?That is why Grit works that way, you are engaged by things with heavy. Seems super simple.

Yeah. No one is arguing that point. I said in my post, "TIE Bombers cause engagement."

So a Bomber negating Grit doesn't contradict Heavy at all.

Nor does Instigator forcing you to attack a Heavy.

There is precedent now for multiple layers of Engagement causing different interactions with Heavy. That's all I'm pointing at.

Nor does Instigator forcing you to attack a Heavy.There is precedent now for multiple layers of Engagement causing different interactions with Heavy. That's all I'm pointing at.

There is precedent... For one explicit named ability, that you only point out in incorrect contexts.

Grit doesn't cause a different reaction with Heavy at all. Grit causes a different reaction with being engaged to 1 squadron. That's still not really "multiple layers" because there is nothing about layers mentioned, or implied in Grit.

Why am I even responding?

Nor does Instigator forcing you to attack a Heavy.There is precedent now for multiple layers of Engagement causing different interactions with Heavy. That's all I'm pointing at.

There is precedent... For one explicit named ability, that you only point out in incorrect contexts.

Grit doesn't cause a different reaction with Heavy at all. Grit causes a different reaction with being engaged to 1 squadron. That's still not really "multiple layers" because there is nothing about layers mentioned, or implied in Grit.

Why am I even responding?

Nor does Instigator forcing you to attack a Heavy.There is precedent now for multiple layers of Engagement causing different interactions with Heavy. That's all I'm pointing at.

There is precedent... For one explicit named ability, that you only point out in incorrect contexts.

Grit doesn't cause a different reaction with Heavy at all. Grit causes a different reaction with being engaged to 1 squadron. That's still not really "multiple layers" because there is nothing about layers mentioned, or implied in Grit.

Why am I even responding?

A game effect forcing you to attack something that is Heavy instead of a ship doesn't mean that the Heavy is the one directly preventing an attack on the ship.

A game effect forcing you to attack something that is Heavy instead of a ship doesn't mean that the Heavy is the one directly preventing an attack on the ship.

This has nothing to do with what I said, and there is absolutely no point in bringing up another argument to be abused.