Because they are fake they don't prevent you from attacking ships.

The Instigator's fake squadrons explicitly do not prevent an opposing squadron from attacking a ship, right?

Wrong. Because they are fake they cannot be targeted. It is the actual rules that say, if you are engaged and have no valid squadron targets, you may attack a ship.

The fact that they are fake is not (directly) allowing you to target ships, it is the fact that they are not legal targets.

The email answer says that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. My claim is that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. I understand your argument, I'm saying that I think it's wrong because the imaginary squadrons don't prevent you from attacking ships.

They don't prevent you from attacking ships in that one situation because there are no legal squadron targets around - thus you are following the rules of Engagement where you "Must attack a squadron rather than a ship if possible ."

In this case there are legal squadron targets around, therefore if you follow the rules of Engagement then you could be required to attack the Heavy squadrons rather than the ship, because it is possible to do so.

Thank you for explaining this interpretation. I've missed it the 2 dozen times it's been posted since page 1.

No, just kidding, I got it. Thanks though. I think it may be confusing because I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree with how you are interpreting the (somewhat vague) wording in the email. The email does not specifically address this particular situation, nor is it worded explicitly enough to prevent two differing interpretations based on the wording.

Because they are fake they don't prevent you from attacking ships.

The Instigator's fake squadrons explicitly do not prevent an opposing squadron from attacking a ship, right?

Wrong. Because they are fake they cannot be targeted. It is the actual rules that say, if you are engaged and have no valid squadron targets, you may attack a ship.

The fact that they are fake is not (directly) allowing you to target ships, it is the fact that they are not legal targets.

The email answer says that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. My claim is that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. I understand your argument, I'm saying that I think it's wrong because the imaginary squadrons don't prevent you from attacking ships.

They don't prevent you from attacking ships in that one situation because there are no legal squadron targets around - thus you are following the rules of Engagement where you "Must attack an engaged squadron rather than a ship if possible ."

In this case there are legal squadron targets around, therefore if you follow the rules of Engagement (because of Instigator's "phantom squadrons") then you could be required to attack the Heavy squadrons rather than the ship, because it is possible to do so.

So, are you saying that the heavy keyword suddenly no longer applies?

I'd argue heavy still applies and allows you to attack the ship.

What does happen however, is that you can't move as instigators 2 fake squadrons engage you and prevent moving while the heavy does not prevent moving but your squadron is still engaged.

Because they are fake they don't prevent you from attacking ships.

The Instigator's fake squadrons explicitly do not prevent an opposing squadron from attacking a ship, right?

Wrong. Because they are fake they cannot be targeted. It is the actual rules that say, if you are engaged and have no valid squadron targets, you may attack a ship.

The fact that they are fake is not (directly) allowing you to target ships, it is the fact that they are not legal targets.

The email answer says that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. My claim is that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. I understand your argument, I'm saying that I think it's wrong because the imaginary squadrons don't prevent you from attacking ships.

They don't prevent you from attacking ships in that one situation because there are no legal squadron targets around - thus you are following the rules of Engagement where you "Must attack an engaged squadron rather than a ship if possible ."

In this case there are legal squadron targets around, therefore if you follow the rules of Engagement (because of Instigator's "phantom squadrons") then you could be required to attack the Heavy squadrons rather than the ship, because it is possible to do so.

So, are you saying that the heavy keyword suddenly no longer applies?

I'd argue heavy still applies and allows you to attack the ship.

What does happen however, is that you can't move as instigators 2 fake squadrons engage you and prevent moving while the heavy does not prevent moving but your squadron is still engaged.

Heavy only says that you yourself (the Heavy squadron) do not prevent enemy squadrons from moving or attacking. Heavy does not affect other engagements.

I'll use another situation - Let's say you have an X-Wing, a TIE Bomber, and a Firespray-31 all in engagement with each other, along with an imperial ship at distance 1. Let's give the Firespray-31 a hypothetical granted ability that says "this squadron may not be the target of attacks." Who, then, is the legal target of the X-Wing? It can't shoot the ship because it is engaged by the Firespray-31. Therefore it must shoot the TIE Bomber.

What does happen however, is that you can't move as instigators 2 fake squadrons engage you and prevent moving while the heavy does not prevent moving but your squadron is still engaged.

So the Instigator's squadrons impose the movement restrictions for being engaged but not the targeting restrictions?

Because they are fake they don't prevent you from attacking ships.

The Instigator's fake squadrons explicitly do not prevent an opposing squadron from attacking a ship, right?

Wrong. Because they are fake they cannot be targeted. It is the actual rules that say, if you are engaged and have no valid squadron targets, you may attack a ship.

The fact that they are fake is not (directly) allowing you to target ships, it is the fact that they are not legal targets.

The email answer says that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. My claim is that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. I understand your argument, I'm saying that I think it's wrong because the imaginary squadrons don't prevent you from attacking ships.

They don't prevent you from attacking ships in that one situation because there are no legal squadron targets around - thus you are following the rules of Engagement where you "Must attack an engaged squadron rather than a ship if possible ."

In this case there are legal squadron targets around, therefore if you follow the rules of Engagement (because of Instigator's "phantom squadrons") then you could be required to attack the Heavy squadrons rather than the ship, because it is possible to do so.

So, are you saying that the heavy keyword suddenly no longer applies?

I'd argue heavy still applies and allows you to attack the ship.

What does happen however, is that you can't move as instigators 2 fake squadrons engage you and prevent moving while the heavy does not prevent moving but your squadron is still engaged.

Heavy only says that you yourself (the Heavy squadron) do not prevent enemy squadrons from moving or attacking. Heavy does not affect other engagements.

I'll use another situation - Let's say you have an X-Wing, a TIE Bomber, and a Firespray-31 all in engagement with each other, along with an imperial ship at distance 1. Let's give the Firespray-31 a hypothetical granted ability that says "this squadron may not be the target of attacks." Who, then, is the legal target of the X-Wing? It can't shoot the ship because it is engaged by the Firespray-31. Therefore it must shoot the TIE Bomber.

I'm not going to engage is fictional hypotheticals becasue I don't know what this granted ability is:

Here is the definition of heavy: Heavy . (You do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving.)

Now, if you have an A wing and a tie bomber and instigator, who can the A wing attack?

Answer: The bomber or instigator.

It doesn't have to attack the bomber unless you can show me the rule that negates the heavy keyword simply because instigator is around.

The only thing instigator does in this situation is lock down the A wing so it can't move, that's it.

What does happen however, is that you can't move as instigators 2 fake squadrons engage you and prevent moving while the heavy does not prevent moving but your squadron is still engaged.

So the Instigator's squadrons impose the movement restrictions for being engaged but not the targeting restrictions?

Exactly like the email says, yeah.

The only thing instigator does in this situation is lock down the A wing so it can't move, that's it.

Why? Why does the instigator only impose half of the restriction of engagement?

What does happen however, is that you can't move as instigators 2 fake squadrons engage you and prevent moving while the heavy does not prevent moving but your squadron is still engaged.

So the Instigator's squadrons impose the movement restrictions for being engaged but not the targeting restrictions?

Correct.

There are no targetting restrictions as pointed out in the email because the 2 squadrons "put in play" by instigator do not exist. They are not targetable as confirmed by James Kniffen. Instigator does not give regular squadron effects to other squadrons like tie bombers. Thus the tie bomber is still heavy and does not prevent a squadron from attacking a ship with it's presence.

What does happen however, is that you can't move as instigators 2 fake squadrons engage you and prevent moving while the heavy does not prevent moving but your squadron is still engaged.

So the Instigator's squadrons impose the movement restrictions for being engaged but not the targeting restrictions?

Exactly like the email says, yeah.

The email says

Since it isn’t possible for those squadrons to attack the two illusory squadrons that are engaging them, they can attack the Instigator or another ship.

The reason you can attack a ship in this case is because there are no valid squadron targets. That's what the email says. Therefore, if there ARE other squadron targets you are going to have to shoot them.

The only thing instigator does in this situation is lock down the A wing so it can't move, that's it.

Why? Why does the instigator only impose half of the restriction of engagement?

The email by James Kniffen tells us that we can't attack phantom squadrons, thus the only other aspect is the movement part.

What does happen however, is that you can't move as instigators 2 fake squadrons engage you and prevent moving while the heavy does not prevent moving but your squadron is still engaged.

So the Instigator's squadrons impose the movement restrictions for being engaged but not the targeting restrictions?

Exactly like the email says, yeah.

The email says

Since it isn’t possible for those squadrons to attack the two illusory squadrons that are engaging them, they can attack the Instigator or another ship.

The reason you can attack a ship in this case is because there are no valid squadron targets. That's what the email says. Therefore, if there ARE other squadron targets you are going to have to shoot them.

Why do you think that heavy no longer applies? The email talks only about illusory squadrons, it doesn't say that the heavy keyword is negated by instigator, nor does the email even imply it.

Can you cite the rule showing that heavy is no longer applicable?

What does happen however, is that you can't move as instigators 2 fake squadrons engage you and prevent moving while the heavy does not prevent moving but your squadron is still engaged.

So the Instigator's squadrons impose the movement restrictions for being engaged but not the targeting restrictions?

Exactly like the email says, yeah.

The email says

Since it isn’t possible for those squadrons to attack the two illusory squadrons that are engaging them, they can attack the Instigator or another ship.

The reason you can attack a ship in this case is because there are no valid squadron targets. That's what the email says. Therefore, if there ARE other squadron targets you are going to have to shoot them.

Right, you have to attack squadrons if possible. That's what engagement is. Heavy squadrons engage, so the same thing applies.

Then you go to targeting, it's impossible to attack a squadron that didn't exist, so we throw those out. No Escort keywords, so we ignore that. Now we look at all remaining squadrons, we have to attack one of them. Oh, there's only one we can attack. It's Heavy - an ability which explicitly overrides the requirement to attack a squadron, so we can attack that Heavy (and we have to if we target a squadron), but we can also target a ship - as explicitly provided in the Heavy rules exception to engagement.

Because they are fake they don't prevent you from attacking ships.

The Instigator's fake squadrons explicitly do not prevent an opposing squadron from attacking a ship, right?

Wrong. Because they are fake they cannot be targeted. It is the actual rules that say, if you are engaged and have no valid squadron targets, you may attack a ship.

The fact that they are fake is not (directly) allowing you to target ships, it is the fact that they are not legal targets.

The email answer says that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. My claim is that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. I understand your argument, I'm saying that I think it's wrong because the imaginary squadrons don't prevent you from attacking ships.

They don't prevent you from attacking ships in that one situation because there are no legal squadron targets around - thus you are following the rules of Engagement where you "Must attack an engaged squadron rather than a ship if possible ."

In this case there are legal squadron targets around, therefore if you follow the rules of Engagement (because of Instigator's "phantom squadrons") then you could be required to attack the Heavy squadrons rather than the ship, because it is possible to do so.

So, are you saying that the heavy keyword suddenly no longer applies?

I'd argue heavy still applies and allows you to attack the ship.

What does happen however, is that you can't move as instigators 2 fake squadrons engage you and prevent moving while the heavy does not prevent moving but your squadron is still engaged.

Heavy only says that you yourself (the Heavy squadron) do not prevent enemy squadrons from moving or attacking. Heavy does not affect other engagements.

I'll use another situation - Let's say you have an X-Wing, a TIE Bomber, and a Firespray-31 all in engagement with each other, along with an imperial ship at distance 1. Let's give the Firespray-31 a hypothetical granted ability that says "this squadron may not be the target of attacks." Who, then, is the legal target of the X-Wing? It can't shoot the ship because it is engaged by the Firespray-31. Therefore it must shoot the TIE Bomber.

I'm not going to engage is fictional hypotheticals becasue I don't know what this granted ability is:

Here is the definition of heavy: Heavy . (You do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving.)

Now, if you have an A wing and a tie bomber and instigator, who can the A wing attack?

Answer: The bomber or instigator.

It doesn't have to attack the bomber unless you can show me the rule that negates the heavy keyword simply because instigator is around.

The only thing instigator does in this situation is lock down the A wing so it can't move, that's it.

But you are still engaged by the firespray and therefore must follow the rules for engagement. The bomber isn't the one preventing the x-wing from attacking the ship, the firespray is.

But you are still engaged by the firespray and therefore must follow the rules for engagement. The bomber isn't the one preventing the x-wing from attacking the ship, the firespray is.

But you are still engaged by the Bomber. The Bomber is forcing you to target a squadron due to engagement. Then you examine your targets. You can't target the Firespray (because of some hypothetical magic) so you look to target the Bomber, which you have to do because you are engaged (it doesn't better by whom you are engaged). Oh, but the Bomber is Heavy, which explicitly changes the way that engagement works in relation to targeting the Bomber.

Because they are fake they don't prevent you from attacking ships.

The Instigator's fake squadrons explicitly do not prevent an opposing squadron from attacking a ship, right?

Wrong. Because they are fake they cannot be targeted. It is the actual rules that say, if you are engaged and have no valid squadron targets, you may attack a ship.

The fact that they are fake is not (directly) allowing you to target ships, it is the fact that they are not legal targets.

The email answer says that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. My claim is that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. I understand your argument, I'm saying that I think it's wrong because the imaginary squadrons don't prevent you from attacking ships.

They don't prevent you from attacking ships in that one situation because there are no legal squadron targets around - thus you are following the rules of Engagement where you "Must attack an engaged squadron rather than a ship if possible ."

In this case there are legal squadron targets around, therefore if you follow the rules of Engagement (because of Instigator's "phantom squadrons") then you could be required to attack the Heavy squadrons rather than the ship, because it is possible to do so.

So, are you saying that the heavy keyword suddenly no longer applies?

I'd argue heavy still applies and allows you to attack the ship.

What does happen however, is that you can't move as instigators 2 fake squadrons engage you and prevent moving while the heavy does not prevent moving but your squadron is still engaged.

Heavy only says that you yourself (the Heavy squadron) do not prevent enemy squadrons from moving or attacking. Heavy does not affect other engagements.

I'll use another situation - Let's say you have an X-Wing, a TIE Bomber, and a Firespray-31 all in engagement with each other, along with an imperial ship at distance 1. Let's give the Firespray-31 a hypothetical granted ability that says "this squadron may not be the target of attacks." Who, then, is the legal target of the X-Wing? It can't shoot the ship because it is engaged by the Firespray-31. Therefore it must shoot the TIE Bomber.

I'm not going to engage is fictional hypotheticals becasue I don't know what this granted ability is:

Here is the definition of heavy: Heavy . (You do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving.)

Now, if you have an A wing and a tie bomber and instigator, who can the A wing attack?

Answer: The bomber or instigator.

It doesn't have to attack the bomber unless you can show me the rule that negates the heavy keyword simply because instigator is around.

The only thing instigator does in this situation is lock down the A wing so it can't move, that's it.

But you are still engaged by the firespray and therefore must follow the rules for engagement. The bomber isn't the one preventing the x-wing from attacking the ship, the firespray is.

I'm sorry, you may have missed it, but I stated I'm not addressing your example because it included some hypothetical rule that doesn't exist.

Because they are fake they don't prevent you from attacking ships.

The Instigator's fake squadrons explicitly do not prevent an opposing squadron from attacking a ship, right?

Wrong. Because they are fake they cannot be targeted. It is the actual rules that say, if you are engaged and have no valid squadron targets, you may attack a ship.

The fact that they are fake is not (directly) allowing you to target ships, it is the fact that they are not legal targets.

The email answer says that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. My claim is that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. I understand your argument, I'm saying that I think it's wrong because the imaginary squadrons don't prevent you from attacking ships.

They don't prevent you from attacking ships in that one situation because there are no legal squadron targets around - thus you are following the rules of Engagement where you "Must attack an engaged squadron rather than a ship if possible ."

In this case there are legal squadron targets around, therefore if you follow the rules of Engagement (because of Instigator's "phantom squadrons") then you could be required to attack the Heavy squadrons rather than the ship, because it is possible to do so.

So, are you saying that the heavy keyword suddenly no longer applies?

I'd argue heavy still applies and allows you to attack the ship.

What does happen however, is that you can't move as instigators 2 fake squadrons engage you and prevent moving while the heavy does not prevent moving but your squadron is still engaged.

Heavy only says that you yourself (the Heavy squadron) do not prevent enemy squadrons from moving or attacking. Heavy does not affect other engagements.

I'll use another situation - Let's say you have an X-Wing, a TIE Bomber, and a Firespray-31 all in engagement with each other, along with an imperial ship at distance 1. Let's give the Firespray-31 a hypothetical granted ability that says "this squadron may not be the target of attacks." Who, then, is the legal target of the X-Wing? It can't shoot the ship because it is engaged by the Firespray-31. Therefore it must shoot the TIE Bomber.

I'm not going to engage is fictional hypotheticals becasue I don't know what this granted ability is:

Here is the definition of heavy: Heavy . (You do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving.)

Now, if you have an A wing and a tie bomber and instigator, who can the A wing attack?

Answer: The bomber or instigator.

It doesn't have to attack the bomber unless you can show me the rule that negates the heavy keyword simply because instigator is around.

The only thing instigator does in this situation is lock down the A wing so it can't move, that's it.

But you are still engaged by the firespray and therefore must follow the rules for engagement. The bomber isn't the one preventing the x-wing from attacking the ship, the firespray is.

I'm sorry, you may have missed it, but I stated I'm not addressing your example because it included some hypothetical rule that doesn't exist.

You are misinterpreting Heavy in this context. The Heavy Squadron is not the one forcing the squadron to attack it - the two Phantom squadrons are, because RAW they are Engaged.

How is my hypothetical situation any different than having two Phantom squadrons that cannot be targeted because of Instigator?

If it's absolutely identical then it isn't a necessary hypothetical. If you are referencing some combination of abilities (the Heavy Escort we saw earlier) then the hypothetical doesn't apply because it is different.

So either it's unnecessary, or invalid - unless you have some argument that makes the hypothetical significant to your overall argument.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'm afraid I don't see the significance of the hypothetical either. The argument you are presenting is identical "one heavy squadron, X unattackable squadrons".

Because they are fake they don't prevent you from attacking ships.

The Instigator's fake squadrons explicitly do not prevent an opposing squadron from attacking a ship, right?

Wrong. Because they are fake they cannot be targeted. It is the actual rules that say, if you are engaged and have no valid squadron targets, you may attack a ship.

The fact that they are fake is not (directly) allowing you to target ships, it is the fact that they are not legal targets.

The email answer says that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. My claim is that they don't prevent you from attacking ships. I understand your argument, I'm saying that I think it's wrong because the imaginary squadrons don't prevent you from attacking ships.

They don't prevent you from attacking ships in that one situation because there are no legal squadron targets around - thus you are following the rules of Engagement where you "Must attack an engaged squadron rather than a ship if possible ."

In this case there are legal squadron targets around, therefore if you follow the rules of Engagement (because of Instigator's "phantom squadrons") then you could be required to attack the Heavy squadrons rather than the ship, because it is possible to do so.

So, are you saying that the heavy keyword suddenly no longer applies?

I'd argue heavy still applies and allows you to attack the ship.

What does happen however, is that you can't move as instigators 2 fake squadrons engage you and prevent moving while the heavy does not prevent moving but your squadron is still engaged.

Heavy only says that you yourself (the Heavy squadron) do not prevent enemy squadrons from moving or attacking. Heavy does not affect other engagements.

I'll use another situation - Let's say you have an X-Wing, a TIE Bomber, and a Firespray-31 all in engagement with each other, along with an imperial ship at distance 1. Let's give the Firespray-31 a hypothetical granted ability that says "this squadron may not be the target of attacks." Who, then, is the legal target of the X-Wing? It can't shoot the ship because it is engaged by the Firespray-31. Therefore it must shoot the TIE Bomber.

I'm not going to engage is fictional hypotheticals becasue I don't know what this granted ability is:

Here is the definition of heavy: Heavy . (You do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving.)

Now, if you have an A wing and a tie bomber and instigator, who can the A wing attack?

Answer: The bomber or instigator.

It doesn't have to attack the bomber unless you can show me the rule that negates the heavy keyword simply because instigator is around.

The only thing instigator does in this situation is lock down the A wing so it can't move, that's it.

But you are still engaged by the firespray and therefore must follow the rules for engagement. The bomber isn't the one preventing the x-wing from attacking the ship, the firespray is.

I'm sorry, you may have missed it, but I stated I'm not addressing your example because it included some hypothetical rule that doesn't exist.

How is my hypothetical situation any different than having two Phantom squadrons that cannot be targeted because of Instigator?

Because it contained some magic rule I don't really know about.

But lets look at it:

xwing, unattackable firespray, tie bomber and a ship.

X-wing can attack ship.

Why?

Lets deal with engagement first. You look at each squadron individually to determine engagement to other squadrons.

Does the tie bomber engage the xwing?

Yes.

Does the firespray engage the xwing?

Yes.

Now we determine if there is anything that overrides any aspect of engagement.

Does the magic that prevents the firespray from being attacked override the engagement rule of targetting ships?

No. (I'm using the rule from the email by James Kniffen here since we don't know the magic you have come up with). Since firespray isn't a valid target due to magic, the ship is or the bomber is. We must check the bomber to see if it has any keywords that allow the xwing to target the ship.

Does the heavy keyword on the tie bomber prevent a squadron from attacking ships?

No.

Thus the xwing can attack the ship even though it is engaged by 2 other squadrons.

You are misinterpreting Heavy in this context. The Heavy Squadron is not the one forcing the squadron to attack it - the two Phantom squadrons are, because RAW they are Engaged.

The attacking squadron is engaged by the Heavy squadron already. The rules don't change because you are engaged by more than 1 squadron (Grit notwithstanding - not relevant in this context.)

If my attacking squadron is forced to attack the Heavy (and can't attach a ship) because of the RRG on engagement, then that situation is shady true with only being engaged by a Heavy squadron. You aren't extra engaged, or super engaged, or hyper engaged just because you are engaged to multiple squadrons. Engagement is a Boolean condition, it isn't a separate condition for each squadron you are engaged with.

We've slipped the rails

You are misinterpreting Heavy in this context. The Heavy Squadron is not the one forcing the squadron to attack it - the two Phantom squadrons are, because RAW they are Engaged.

Yes but engaged isn't the only part of the equation is it?

Engaged is merely the starting point.

You then have to examine each engagement and determine rules for each engaging squadron.

James Kniffen gave us the rules for the illusory squadrons -- they can't be attacked and don't prevent an attack on a ship. Thus, just because you add a heavy squadron, it doesn't change the nature of those 2 illusory, unattackable squadrons. They also don't transfer their non-heavy status to the tie bomber. Thus, neither the illusory, nor the heavy bomber stops a squadron from attacking a ship.

The basis for the email ruling is that they are following the RAW for Engagement because since they cannot attack the illusory squadrons they are allowed to shoot the ship. You're applying the ruling for a different situation where it didn't apply. That's like asking your buddy if you can try a piece of their food, getting a yes, and then following that person around for the rest of their life taking a piece of food off their plate.

To be able to attack a ship while engaged one of two things must be true

1 - Either you somehow are engaged but have no legal squadron targets (the situation addressed by the email)

2 - All of the squadrons you are engaged with have heavy.

That's it. there is nothing more to consider when deciding if you can attack a ship while engaged, just those 2 points.

If you are engaged by the instigator and a heavy - do you have legal squadron targets? Yes. Do all of the squadrons engaged with you have heavy? No, the 2 from the instigator do not. Therefore you must target one of the legal squadron targets. What special rules the other squadrons have is irrelevant because the imaginary squadrons don't have those rules.

The basis for the email ruling is that they are following the RAW for Engagement because since they cannot attack the illusory squadrons they are allowed to shoot the ship. You're applying the ruling for a different situation where it didn't apply. That's like asking your buddy if you can try a piece of their food, getting a yes, and then following that person around for the rest of their life taking a piece of food off their plate.

You don't seem to have much luck with using meaningful hypotheticals. What about following my friend around for their whole life? I don't even....

Anyway, they didn't address any of the points you made in the beginning of this post. You might be inferring that they were suggesting that, but they didn't outright say it. They said that it is impossible to attack the squadrons, so you can attack a ship.

Nothing they said invalidates Heavy on real squadrons, did it?