Unfortunately this isn't any new information. This is just a different way if you expressing your opinion. It's certainly not any more official.

I see now that our main point of contention isn't really what the scenario entails, but rather it is what our interpretations of what Heavy and Engagement actually do, as well as how target selection works.

• One side believes that when choosing valid targets as a squadron you may ignore Heavy squadrons because Heavy is an active "you don't have to shoot me."

• The other side (which i support) believes that when selecting a target, if you are Engaged, you must attack an engaged squadron if possible (doesn't have to be the squadron that engages you, just has to be an engaged squadron ), therefore the Heavy is the only valid target if the other squadrons you are engaged with cannot be a valid target. This interpretation leans more on the passive wording of Heavy, as "You do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving." doesn't explicitly say "you don't have to shoot me" but it is often interpreted that way. The Heavy isn't the one preventing you from shooting the ship, the engagement by another squadron that happens to be an invalid target is.

FAQ Ruling:

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

Grit seems pretty obvious to me.

Grit: (You are not prevented from moving while you are engaged by only 1 squadron.)

Heavy doesn't remove the status of being engaged, it just frees you to move in spite of being engaged.

So the question is: how many squadrons are you engaged by? 2. So grit doesn't free you even though one of the squadrons says my engaged status doesn't prevent you from moving--that status still exists.

Grit doesn't t let you move if you were engaged by 2 heavy squadrons either. What lets you move is that both are heavy.

Apply this same logic to Heavy vs target selection and you have the reason why you must target the Heavy squadron in the OP scenario.

I would like to say, upon further reflection, that I believe I was wrong in my earlier interpretation.

I think daveddo, forgottenlore and others are actually correct.

Here is what is helping me come to this interpretation: Engagement is nothing more than a distance 1 zone of control (zoc). Instead of calling it a zoc, they call it engagement. A zoc in armada is a distance 1 ring around something, ship in the case of instigator or squadon. This zoc can be layered to increase it's effect. This is common in wargames where stacks based upon certain strengths can create situations where a unit can't disengage or can but suffers penalites, etc.

Why do I say that the engagement zoc can be layered? Because of grit. Grit tells us that a squadron can ignore a single layer zoc/engagement from a squadron and move away. It however can't move away when there is 2 or more layers of of zoc/engagement ie 2 or more squadrons.

What is instigator? It is a 2 layer zoc/engagement ship that says that anything within distance 1 of it is engaged by 2 non-heavy squadrons. Anything inside this zoc is affected by the standard engagement rules that says, attack a squadron if possible.

Without a squadron possible for attack, you can shoot at the ship.

Enter the tie bomber. It has heavy and thus emanates a modified engagement/zoc. It still has an engagement/zoc out to distance 1, but this particular engagement/zoc tells us that it doesn't make enemy squadrons target it or another squadron but instead can ignore it's engagement/zoc for the purposes of movement and ship targetting.

When a heavy engagement/zoc ring is overlapped by a standard engagement/zoc ring, the standard engagement/zoc ring takes precedence until it is removed.

This is where the second bullet point of engagement takes effect both with James Kniffen's email and RAW. The key point being "if possible". The instigator by itself provides a 2 squadron engagement/zoc but no actual fighters. Thus negating the if possible portion of bullet 2 of engagment.

Now, the tie bomber is in the mix. Based upon it's position, it's modified heavy engagement/zoc is overlapped by the instigators unmodified engagement/zoc. This now enables the "if possible" part of the unmodified engagement/zoc. Now a possible target exists under that engagement/zoc ring and thus triggers the if possible portion of the engagement rule.

When there are no squadrons as possible targets because they are fake, then the engagement/zoc ring just prevents movement since there are no other 'possible' squadrons to target. The ring of engagement/zoc from the instigator however, isn't negated by the presence of a heavy squadron any more than if that ring was being produced by a normal, non-heavy squadron instead of instigator.

What turned me around was seeing this as a zoc concept instead of seeing this as a target concept and what the target can or can't prevent.

Well put Reiryc.

Except that nothing in the rules mentions multiple layers of engagement. Engagement is a binary condition. That is only ever seen as different in relation to Grit.

Except that nothing in the rules mentions multiple layers of engagement. Engagement is a binary condition. That is only ever seen as different in relation to Grit.

If it can't be layered then why does Instigator say, on the card, "engaged by 2 additional squadrons"

So, in the original scenario:

• A rule (Engagement) says you must attack the Heavy squadron (as it's the only valid target) rather than Instigator.
• A card effect (Heavy) says you don't prevent the engaged squadron from attacking Instigator.
• As the effects contradict, The Golden Rules say the card effect effect prevails.

This is the only point I've seen made in the whole thread that has not been countered with a response.

Because the card effect is being misapplied. It would apply if that heavy squadron was what was forcing you to "shoot at squadrons if possible." But its not. Instigators phantom squadrons are what is "forcing you to shoot at squadrons if possible".And it has been countered, in almost every single post. Because nothing I've said here is new.

Except that nothing in the rules mentions multiple layers of engagement. Engagement is a binary condition. That is only ever seen as different in relation to Grit.

To be fair, nothing in the rules mentions it being a binary condition either.

I'd say the first paragraph on engagement does say that it's more than just binary: While a squadron is at distance 1 of one or more enemy squadrons, it is engaged with all of those enemy squadrons .

In my mind, that says it's more than a binary situation.

Engagement is not a one-to-one interaction between squadrons, as stated by the FAQ ruling where the squadron with Grit cannot move when it is engaged with two squarons, one Heavy and one non-Heavy.

If Engagement and Heavy worked the way that DerErlkoenig suggests, then the squadron with Grit would be able to move because Heavy would supercede. However, it does not. The squadron with Grit is still engaged to both squadrons, one of which is non-Heavy, therefore it cannot move.

Same logic applies here for selecting targets in the OP scenario. You are engaged by 3 total squadrons, one of which is Heavy. You are engaged by a non-Heavy squadron, therefore you must attack a Squadron if possible. The only legal Squadron target you have engaged is a TIE Bomber Squadron, therefore you must shoot the TIE Bomber Squadron.

This all stems from the passive wording of Heavy. The Heavy doesn't prevent you from attacking ships or moving - but that doesn't mean that something else you are engaged with doesn't prevent it.

If Engagement and Heavy worked the way that DerErlkoenig suggests, then the squadron with Grit would be able to move because Heavy would supercede. However, it does not. The squadron with Grit is still engaged to both squadrons, one of which is non-Heavy, therefore it cannot move.

If you feel this way, then you obviously do not understand what I'm saying.

I've clarified this several times. Grit looks for two engaged squadrons. Heavy squadrons still engage. Reading what I write might be helpful next time you want to tell me what I think.

Except that nothing in the rules mentions multiple layers of engagement. Engagement is a binary condition. That is only ever seen as different in relation to Grit.

If it can't be layered then why does Instigator say, on the card, "engaged by 2 additional squadrons"

Wave 2 introduces a new ability that squadrons can have called Grit.

If Engagement and Heavy worked the way that DerErlkoenig suggests, then the squadron with Grit would be able to move because Heavy would supercede. However, it does not. The squadron with Grit is still engaged to both squadrons, one of which is non-Heavy, therefore it cannot move.

If you feel this way, then you obviously do not understand what I'm saying.

I've clarified this several times. Grit looks for two engaged squadrons. Heavy squadrons still engage. Reading what I write might be helpful next time you want to tell me what I think.

I read what you write, and this is why I bring up this interpretation - you're not staying consistent in how you handle Heavy.

Based on your assessment of how Heavy works, it is an active "you don't have to shoot me" therefore a squadron engaged by Instigator can shoot the Instigator, regardless of nearby Heavy squadrons.

If that is true, then Heavy also has an active "you don't have to stay in that one spot if you want to move" - in which case having both a Heavy squadron and a regular squadron engaged with a Grit Squadron would not impede its movement.

Staying consistent with the way Heavy is treated in the FAQ ruling for Grit is how you can come to the conclusion that anything engaged by a non-Heavy squadron (including Instigator) must then attack a Squadron if it wants to attack, regardless of keywords on the squadron.

I didn't read all of what you wrote because I'm positive it would be a waste of time.

I've been very clear that Heavy squadrons engage, and effectively engage fully - I've argued with other people about that on this thread.

Grit says you can move if you are engaged by only 1 squadron. Heavy squadrons still engage, therefore Grit doesn't let you move. Not only have I explicitly said that, but I've also justified it in relation to Heavy. When you go to try to move, or target attacks, that's when Han l Heavy is relevant, not even determining engagement.

In any case, it's quite obvious there is no point in arguing about this further. We'll see what happens when they give their ruling.

I read it dave.

In case you thought no one cared.

I do. I care.

In any case, it's quite obvious there is no point in arguing about this further.

Well certainly not if this is how you argue:

I didn't read all of what you wrote because I'm positive it would be a waste of time.

That is not argument; that is merely contradiction.

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

When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship.

There are two ways to interpret Heavy: it either modifies Engagement or it modifies the squadron itself. Let's consider a squadron of X-wings engaged with a squadron of Bombers and Instigator .

Using the former interpretation, the X-wing is engaged with two "ghosts" and one Heavy. These engagements are treated differently; the Heavy engagement is technically an engagement, but it does not restrict movement or target choice. The "ghost" engagements still apply the movement and attack restrictions. Since Heavy applies to the engagement state and not to the squadron, the "ghost" engagements force the X-wings to attack the Bombers.

Applying the other interpretation to the same scenario, the X-wings are engaged three times. It does not matter where these engagements come from. The X-wings are triple-engaged. When the X-wings choose a target, Heavy kicks in, and the Bombers do not, by virtue of their presence, prevent the X-wings from attacking Instigator .

The problem with the latter interpretation comes from the last two words of Heavy: "or moving." A squadron itself never prevents another squadron from moving; a state of engagement does. Therefore, at least the last part of Heavy must modify the state-of-engagement applied by its squadron. It is inconsistent to apply Heavy''s two conditions differently (i.e., the "attack" part to the squadron proper and the "movement" part to the engagement). Therefore, we must conclude that Heavy modifies the way that a (heavy) squadron engages an enemy, not how it reacts to an already-engaged one.

In any case, it's quite obvious there is no point in arguing about this further.

Well certainly not if this is how you argue:

I didn't read all of what you wrote because I'm positive it would be a waste of time.

That is not argument; that is merely contradiction.

Don't be ridiculous. That is not how I argue at all. I've laid out my case numerous times - he's consistently argued against things I have never says, and specifically have said the opposite of. My statement that I wasn't going to read his post wasn't an argument. I never claimed it was an argument.

Moreover, both cases have been made already, I think most people understand both arguments. There is no point in arguing further. In the future, if you'd like to insult my posting style, feel free to read more than one of them.

Anyway, I also disagree with your conclusion. I don't think you understand my position at all.

Heavy squadrons engage. Hopefully we can agree on this. Ok, so my squadron goes to target an attack. He's engaged (by only one Heavy squadron). Ok, well let's examine his targets, only a Heavy squadron is an eligible target, but Heavy says I don't need to target him/I can target a ship instead if I'd like.

Now you suppose that movement must be different, but don't really explain why, and use that to justify some conclusion about how this can't be correct.

I want to move my squadron, I'm engaged, but Heavy says I can move anyway.

Same mechanism. If you'd like more clarification of my posts, there are 6 pages of them to read through, referring to them first would be a great way to save some time.

While I follow both arguments I do not see that the ruling the latest FAQ regarding Instigator somehow negates the Heavy keyword. It seems to me it simply points out that the raider in question may be attacked. It really looks like a bunch of guys mad that they can't just run Instigator and Heavy bombers and lock down enemy squadrons. Really looks like wishful thinking.

This is one of those weird times where the card is "less powerful" than the normal effect in the Rules Reference.

No one in this thread would disagree that if it was just a normal Raider, 2 TIE Fighter Squadrons, a TIE Bomber Squadron, and an X-Wing Squadron all at distance 1 of each other, that the Raider would not then be a legal target for the X-Wing Squadron to attack. The X-Wing Squadron's legal targets are the 2 TIE Fighter Squadrons and the TIE Bomber. In this case, Heavy is weaker than the Regular Engagement from the TIE Fighters - because the X-Wing Squadron is simultaneously Engaged with the TIE Fighter Squadron and the TIE Bomber Squadron. Engagement here means that they must attack a Squadron rather than a Ship if possible.

Replace those two TIE Fighter Squadrons with Instigator's "imaginary" squadrons and you have the exact same game state, except that the TIE Bombers are now the only legal Squadron target. Engagement is stronger than Heavy, and the X-Wing is still engaged by 2 squadrons from Instigator, so the X-Wing Squadron must follow the rules for Engagement - so it must attack the TIE Bomber Squadron.

If it was 3 TIE Bomber Squadrons, an X-Wing, and a normal Raider all at distance 1 of each other, then the Raider is a legal target.

If Instigator stops movement of Squadrons by Engagement then it must entail all of the effects of Engagement. This means that Instigator itself prevents engaged squadrons from moving or attacking ships (as long as there are legal squadron targets for the engaged squadron). Heavy "doesn't prevent" it, Instigator does.

Don't be ridiculous. That is not how I argue at all. My statement that I wasn't going to read his post wasn't an argument. I never claimed it was an argument.

Moreover, both cases have been made already, I think most people understand both arguments. There is no point in arguing further. In the future, if you'd like to insult my posting style, feel free to read more than one of them.

First of all, I did not (intentionally) insult your posting style; I called you out for what appeared to be disinterest in debate. I have read all of your posts on this thread. If we are talking past each other on this thread, perhaps it is because we are not communicating as clearly as we think we are. Let's proceed with the assumption that neither party is stupid. After all, even if I am a stuck up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder, calling me one does not advance this discussion.

Anyway, I also disagree with your conclusion. I don't think you understand my position at all.

1. change the way Engagement is applied or
2. change the way a Heavy squadron interacts with other squadrons when already engaged.

I thought you adhered to interpretation 2, but if you have third, please explain it. We must reach some sort of agreement on this point before we can move on to the particulars.

I came to see why this was even still going on and now I have popcorn. . . I think I will leave this to you professionals to figure out.

Let me know what FFG says.

To be clear, I have no skin in this game. I do not even play Armada. I got nerd sniped by a friend and was actually arguing the other side at first. To reiterate what ForgottenLore said upthread, Fantasy Flight has a rich history of FAQing away troublesome rules, and this may become one of those cases.

First of all, I did not (intentionally) insult your posting style; I called you out for what appeared to be disinterest in debate. I have read all of your posts on this thread. If we are talking past each other on this thread, perhaps it is because we are not communicating as clearly as we think we are. Let's proceed with the assumption that neither party is stupid. After all, even if I am a stuck up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder, calling me one does not advance this discussion.

I am disinterested in debate. Now. After 6 pages of discussion in which certain people have repeatedly strawmanned my argument despite my correction. So I say that it isn't gainful to continue arguing, and I get "called out" on it. My admonishment against being ridiculous still stands, but it's a free* country (*void in some jurisdictions.)

I came to see why this was even still going on and now I have popcorn. . . I think I will leave this to you professionals to figure out.

Let me know what FFG says.

Whatever other words we've exchanged, I applaud your wisdom at not being present in this thread.

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).

First of all, I did not (intentionally) insult your posting style; I called you out for what appeared to be disinterest in debate. I have read all of your posts on this thread. If we are talking past each other on this thread, perhaps it is because we are not communicating as clearly as we think we are. Let's proceed with the assumption that neither party is stupid. After all, even if I am a stuck up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf herder, calling me one does not advance this discussion.

I am disinterested in debate. Now. After 6 pages of discussion in which certain people have repeatedly strawmanned my argument despite my correction. So I say that it isn't gainful to continue arguing, and I get "called out" on it. My admonishment against being ridiculous still stands, but it's a free* country (*void in some jurisdictions.)

I doubt anyone was trying to strawman anything. Apparently your point was not getting across.

I am just here because I think this is an interesting question. Interesting questions are the best parts of rules threads. If anyone is around that cares to address the issue, I'll be here.

MWAHAHAHA! Everyone is gone! THE THREAD IS MINE NOW!

ALL MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!