I wonder how much fun FFG has reading this thread. . .

I wonder how much fun FFG has reading this thread. . .

Well I'm having a boatload of fun with it so I hope they are as entertained by my shenanigans as I am by their games.

What do you make of the grit ruling when engaged by 1 heavy and 1 non-heavy squadron?

Paraphrasing the ruling: you are engaged and can't move away.

I didn't mean to stir up the poop again, I swear.

Ok, I have a question as a newcomer to Armada. It's relavent to the discussion at hand and hopefully doesn't create more conflict. I also don't see it specifically mentioned in the RR.

With this scenario, let's add 3 more X-w squadrons. Is the 4th X-w squadron free of the engagement restrictions because of numerical superiority? In other words, while the other 3 friendly squadrons are engaged with the Imps (1 TB, 2 RDR) can the 4th disengage and move/attack ships (arguments set aside for now of course please)?

My take reading the RR is that it cannot; i.e. one squadron ties up as many opposition squadrons as can fit within range 1. This, however, doesn't make sense to me as the side with numerical superiority should be able do disengage forces beyond what his opponent is able to control (barring any special abilities of course).

If it's already been covered elsewhere, let me know. I thought I might interject something relevant but a little off-topic whilst we await an FFG ruling

You have the rule correct.

One Squadron, if it is not heavy, will tie up as many of the enemy forces as it can "Engage".

Pressing a legitimate threat means the fraternity of pilots will not abandon their comrades until the threat is neutralised...

What do you make of the grit ruling when engaged by 1 heavy and 1 non-heavy squadron?

Paraphrasing the ruling: you are engaged and can't move away.

I wondered about that as well and have seen it referenced in this thread as a precedent for the pro "must-engage-TB" coalition.

What do you make of the grit ruling when engaged by 1 heavy and 1 non-heavy squadron?

Paraphrasing the ruling: you are engaged and can't move away.

It makes perfect sense and is how I would have ruled it prior to official word. Non-heavy would normally hold you down but Grit prevents that. Additional Heavy squadron negates Grit -- there are now two squadrons. Non-Heavy squadron now prevents movement per standard rules of squadron engagement.

I understand where you are coming from, but numerical superiority doesn't come into play. 1 non-heavy squadron can tie up as many squadrons as are within distance 1 of it.

What do you make of the grit ruling when engaged by 1 heavy and 1 non-heavy squadron?

Paraphrasing the ruling: you are engaged and can't move away.

It makes perfect sense and is how I would have ruled it prior to official word. Non-heavy would normally hold you down but Grit prevents that. Additional Heavy squadron negates Grit -- there are now two squadrons. Non-Heavy squadron now prevents movement per standard rules of squadron engagement.

Good summary

What do you make of the grit ruling when engaged by 1 heavy and 1 non-heavy squadron?

Paraphrasing the ruling: you are engaged and can't move away.

It makes perfect sense and is how I would have ruled it prior to official word. Non-heavy would normally hold you down but Grit prevents that. Additional Heavy squadron negates Grit -- there are now two squadrons. Non-Heavy squadron now prevents movement per standard rules of squadron engagement.

Then use that logic with the engaged status that the instigator title creates along with a heavy squadron.

Under the interpretation that Instigator negates Heavy , I don't see why anyone would ever take any list that's not Instigator + 133 points of Rhymer + TIE bombers, since you have a backdoored negation of the bomber's only real weakness.

Ship-heavy build? Pummel it into dust with 14 TIE bombers.

Squadron-heavy build? Doesn't matter because Instigator magics your bombers into escorts while mowing down fighters.

If my T/B are mowing down fighters, I'm doing it wrong.

Hell man, I killed Luke and Wedge with my T/Bs yesterday.

I have a theory that T/B's are actually one of the best squadrons in the game. I blame Mikael for this though.

The theory is because the T/B will on average deal 1 damage to a squadron. This along with their cost and versatility and life. . . yea, they can be a MAJOR pain in high numbers. . .

You have the rule correct.

One Squadron, if it is not heavy, will tie up as many of the enemy forces as it can "Engage".

Pressing a legitimate threat means the fraternity of pilots will not abandon their comrades until the threat is neutralised...

Well I'm glad I read it correctly, however, I still don't like it. Thanks for the reply.

As a military pilot myself (former), each element has its mission and it is not uncommon for one element to bypass an enemy formation (although they could provide assistance) in order to complete their mission (e.g. attack the capital ships). At the risk of everyone hating me for bringing up a prequel reference that involves Anakin, there is a perfect example of this occurring at the beginning of EpIII. If you'll recall the young Anakin wanting to turn around to help the heavily engaged ARCs and Kenobi says, "No…they are doing their job so that we can do ours." Brutal, but a reality nonetheless. Escort does that to some extent, but numerical superiority should give you the ability to disengage until there is parity. IMHO. But, I guess I'll play with overly noble fighter pilots unless it changes hahaha.

What do you make of the grit ruling when engaged by 1 heavy and 1 non-heavy squadron?

Paraphrasing the ruling: you are engaged and can't move away.

It makes perfect sense and is how I would have ruled it prior to official word. Non-heavy would normally hold you down but Grit prevents that. Additional Heavy squadron negates Grit -- there are now two squadrons. Non-Heavy squadron now prevents movement per standard rules of squadron engagement.

Then use that logic with the engaged status that the instigator title creates along with a heavy squadron.

I have. Instigator's "phantom squadrons" prevent movement. The unfriendly squadron is engaged with both the Heavy and the Instigator . How is the engagement created by Instigator forcing you to attack a squadron that specifically says squadrons aren't forced to attack it? The situation without Instigator is brought up in both one of my posts and in Green Knight's post and I think even you outlined it early on (I recall as you having "changed sides on this since the start.) If I have the Heavy and instead of Instigator two actual non- Heavy squadrons I am not forced to attack the Heavy squadron. I have my choice of the three squadrons.

How does this engagement mean Heavy doesn't apply? Heavy doesn't check for the number of squadrons you are engaged with does it?

What do you make of the grit ruling when engaged by 1 heavy and 1 non-heavy squadron?

Paraphrasing the ruling: you are engaged and can't move away.

It makes perfect sense and is how I would have ruled it prior to official word. Non-heavy would normally hold you down but Grit prevents that. Additional Heavy squadron negates Grit -- there are now two squadrons. Non-Heavy squadron now prevents movement per standard rules of squadron engagement.

Then use that logic with the engaged status that the instigator title creates along with a heavy squadron.

I have. Instigator's "phantom squadrons" prevent movement. The unfriendly squadron is engaged with both the Heavy and the Instigator . How is the engagement created by Instigator forcing you to attack a squadron that specifically says squadrons aren't forced to attack it? The situation without Instigator is brought up in both one of my posts and in Green Knight's post and I think even you outlined it early on (I recall as you having "changed sides on this since the start.) If I have the Heavy and instead of Instigator two actual non- Heavy squadrons I am not forced to attack the Heavy squadron. I have my choice of the three squadrons.

How does this engagement mean Heavy doesn't apply? Heavy doesn't check for the number of squadrons you are engaged with does it?

Heavy . (You do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving.)

The question is: Do the 2 phantom fighters engagement status still apply with regards to targeting? We know it works on movement and would prevent an enemy, even one with grit from moving, but do the phantom fighters also apply the "must attack a squadron if possible" portion.

If we have 1 tie bomber and 2 tie fighters next to a raider, we would clearly say that an xwing would have to attack 1 of the 3 squadrons before it could attack the raider. The only difference here is that with instigator, now these are phantom fighters and the crux is, does the engagement rule about targeting a squadron if possible still apply from those phantom squadrons like it does on movement even if the only valid target is a heavy squadron.

So the heavy squadron says to the xwing, 'crap, I can't make you target me.'

The 2 phantom fighters say, 'you have to target a squadron if possible, even if it isn't us.'

It's a riddle wrapped inside an enigma contained within a conundrum reflecting a feedback loop traversing a Möbius strip.

What do you make of the grit ruling when engaged by 1 heavy and 1 non-heavy squadron?

Paraphrasing the ruling: you are engaged and can't move away.

It makes perfect sense and is how I would have ruled it prior to official word. Non-heavy would normally hold you down but Grit prevents that. Additional Heavy squadron negates Grit -- there are now two squadrons. Non-Heavy squadron now prevents movement per standard rules of squadron engagement.

Then use that logic with the engaged status that the instigator title creates along with a heavy squadron.

I have. Instigator's "phantom squadrons" prevent movement. The unfriendly squadron is engaged with both the Heavy and the Instigator . How is the engagement created by Instigator forcing you to attack a squadron that specifically says squadrons aren't forced to attack it? The situation without Instigator is brought up in both one of my posts and in Green Knight's post and I think even you outlined it early on (I recall as you having "changed sides on this since the start.) If I have the Heavy and instead of Instigator two actual non- Heavy squadrons I am not forced to attack the Heavy squadron. I have my choice of the three squadrons.

How does this engagement mean Heavy doesn't apply? Heavy doesn't check for the number of squadrons you are engaged with does it?

Heavy . (You do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving.)

The question is: Do the 2 phantom fighters engagement status still apply with regards to targeting? We know it works on movement and would prevent an enemy, even one with grit from moving, but do the phantom fighters also apply the "must attack a squadron if possible" portion.

If we have 1 tie bomber and 2 tie fighters next to a raider, we would clearly say that an xwing would have to attack 1 of the 3 squadrons before it could attack the raider. The only difference here is that with instigator, now these are phantom fighters and the crux is, does the engagement rule about targeting a squadron if possible still apply from those phantom squadrons like it does on movement even if the only valid target is a heavy squadron.

So the heavy squadron says to the xwing, 'crap, I can't make you target me.'

The 2 phantom fighters say, 'you have to target a squadron if possible, even if it isn't us.'

But I can attack the phantom fighters. Heavy specifically says I can attack a ship which Instigator has in a manner of speaking been ruled as being the phantom fighters (refer to no other squadrons in range and being allowed to attack Instigator .)

Round and round she goes where it stops is on Heavy not being overridden.

What do you make of the grit ruling when engaged by 1 heavy and 1 non-heavy squadron?

Paraphrasing the ruling: you are engaged and can't move away.

It makes perfect sense and is how I would have ruled it prior to official word. Non-heavy would normally hold you down but Grit prevents that. Additional Heavy squadron negates Grit -- there are now two squadrons. Non-Heavy squadron now prevents movement per standard rules of squadron engagement.

Then use that logic with the engaged status that the instigator title creates along with a heavy squadron.

I have. Instigator's "phantom squadrons" prevent movement. The unfriendly squadron is engaged with both the Heavy and the Instigator . How is the engagement created by Instigator forcing you to attack a squadron that specifically says squadrons aren't forced to attack it? The situation without Instigator is brought up in both one of my posts and in Green Knight's post and I think even you outlined it early on (I recall as you having "changed sides on this since the start.) If I have the Heavy and instead of Instigator two actual non- Heavy squadrons I am not forced to attack the Heavy squadron. I have my choice of the three squadrons.

How does this engagement mean Heavy doesn't apply? Heavy doesn't check for the number of squadrons you are engaged with does it?

Heavy . (You do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving.)

The question is: Do the 2 phantom fighters engagement status still apply with regards to targeting? We know it works on movement and would prevent an enemy, even one with grit from moving, but do the phantom fighters also apply the "must attack a squadron if possible" portion.

If we have 1 tie bomber and 2 tie fighters next to a raider, we would clearly say that an xwing would have to attack 1 of the 3 squadrons before it could attack the raider. The only difference here is that with instigator, now these are phantom fighters and the crux is, does the engagement rule about targeting a squadron if possible still apply from those phantom squadrons like it does on movement even if the only valid target is a heavy squadron.

So the heavy squadron says to the xwing, 'crap, I can't make you target me.'

The 2 phantom fighters say, 'you have to target a squadron if possible, even if it isn't us.'

But I can attack the phantom fighters. Heavy specifically says I can attack a ship which Instigator has in a manner of speaking been ruled as being the phantom fighters (refer to no other squadrons in range and being allowed to attack Instigator .)

Round and round she goes where it stops is on Heavy not being overridden.

Round and round she goes where it stops is on engagement not being ignored.

What do you make of the grit ruling when engaged by 1 heavy and 1 non-heavy squadron?

Paraphrasing the ruling: you are engaged and can't move away.

It makes perfect sense and is how I would have ruled it prior to official word. Non-heavy would normally hold you down but Grit prevents that. Additional Heavy squadron negates Grit -- there are now two squadrons. Non-Heavy squadron now prevents movement per standard rules of squadron engagement.

Then use that logic with the engaged status that the instigator title creates along with a heavy squadron.

I have. Instigator's "phantom squadrons" prevent movement. The unfriendly squadron is engaged with both the Heavy and the Instigator . How is the engagement created by Instigator forcing you to attack a squadron that specifically says squadrons aren't forced to attack it? The situation without Instigator is brought up in both one of my posts and in Green Knight's post and I think even you outlined it early on (I recall as you having "changed sides on this since the start.) If I have the Heavy and instead of Instigator two actual non- Heavy squadrons I am not forced to attack the Heavy squadron. I have my choice of the three squadrons.

How does this engagement mean Heavy doesn't apply? Heavy doesn't check for the number of squadrons you are engaged with does it?

Heavy . (You do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving.)

The question is: Do the 2 phantom fighters engagement status still apply with regards to targeting? We know it works on movement and would prevent an enemy, even one with grit from moving, but do the phantom fighters also apply the "must attack a squadron if possible" portion.

If we have 1 tie bomber and 2 tie fighters next to a raider, we would clearly say that an xwing would have to attack 1 of the 3 squadrons before it could attack the raider. The only difference here is that with instigator, now these are phantom fighters and the crux is, does the engagement rule about targeting a squadron if possible still apply from those phantom squadrons like it does on movement even if the only valid target is a heavy squadron.

So the heavy squadron says to the xwing, 'crap, I can't make you target me.'

The 2 phantom fighters say, 'you have to target a squadron if possible, even if it isn't us.'

But I can attack the phantom fighters. Heavy specifically says I can attack a ship which Instigator has in a manner of speaking been ruled as being the phantom fighters (refer to no other squadrons in range and being allowed to attack Instigator .)

Round and round she goes where it stops is on Heavy not being overridden.

Btw, how can you attack phantom fighters??

Wait, we finally got an actual answer on this?

...and it "only" took 13 pages of nerdrage?

No answer.

That email was a cut and paste from page 1

So we're pages deeper into this with absolutely no new arguments mentioned by either side.

We all know the arguments. We don't all agree on the interpretations.

We should all just wait until FFG responds, right? Probably not.

No poop stirring from me anymore. lol

So we're pages deeper into this with absolutely no new arguments mentioned by either side.

We all know the arguments. We don't all agree on the interpretations.

We should all just wait until FFG responds, right? Probably not.

I knew this was going to happen. It's probably my fault: asked for the ruling over in the Vassal Tournament thread because I have a matchup where this is probably going to come into play.

Also, because poop-stirring is kind of my jam.

Wait, we finally got an actual answer on this?

...and it "only" took 13 pages of nerdrage?

Actually to a degree that e-mail is the cause of all of this. I would think the question was motivated by whether Instigator's phantom squadrons causing engagement and since engagement typically prevents one from attacking a ship someone was wondering if Instigator is a shield from squadron attacks. The ruling from Mr. Kniffen is it is not.

As DerErkKoenig points out here is where we go to the old argument about the Golden Rule where the card supercedes the RRG. Since you are engaged and it is possible to attack a squadron per the engagement rules (must attack a squadron if possible) you must attack the squadron according to my esteemed opposition in this even though it has Heavy . This is also how some make the argument that it isn't Instigator negating Heavy . The reasoning is the rules of engagement (must attack a squadron if possible) are negating Heavy .

I find this in direct conflict with the Golden Rule that the card supercedes the RRG. In this case Heavy being on a card means you are not required to attack the Heavy squadron. I have pointed out that I find this consistent with the e-mail from Mr. Kniffen and other targeting situations when engaged with a Heavy squadron absent Instigator .

So I find the other side of this largely amounts to an effort to expand the scope and value of the Instigator title. A mere four points to make any bomber in range of Instigator a shield from squadrons for that ship. I leave it to others to decide if they've done this through sound logic and reading the rules both as written and as intended or stretching the language and rhetorical sleight of hand.

Thank you for you indulgence.

Wait, we finally got an actual answer on this?

...and it "only" took 13 pages of nerdrage?

Actually to a degree that e-mail is the cause of all of this. I would think the question was motivated by whether Instigator's phantom squadrons causing engagement and since engagement typically prevents one from attacking a ship someone was wondering if Instigator is a shield from squadron attacks. The ruling from Mr. Kniffen is it is not.

As DerErkKoenig points out here is where we go to the old argument about the Golden Rule where the card supercedes the RRG. Since you are engaged and it is possible to attack a squadron per the engagement rules (must attack a squadron if possible) you must attack the squadron according to my esteemed opposition in this even though it has Heavy . This is also how some make the argument that it isn't Instigator negating Heavy . The reasoning is the rules of engagement (must attack a squadron if possible) are negating Heavy .

I find this in direct conflict with the Golden Rule that the card supercedes the RRG. In this case Heavy being on a card means you are not required to attack the Heavy squadron. I have pointed out that I find this consistent with the e-mail from Mr. Kniffen and other targeting situations when engaged with a Heavy squadron absent Instigator .

So I find the other side of this largely amounts to an effort to expand the scope and value of the Instigator title. A mere four points to make any bomber in range of Instigator a shield from squadrons for that ship. I leave it to others to decide if they've done this through sound logic and reading the rules both as written and as intended or stretching the language and rhetorical sleight of hand.

Thank you for you indulgence.

In the same way that being engaged with heavy squadrons is no different from being engaged with normal Squads UNLESS EVERY SQUADRON IN RANGE IS HEAVY.