Explain it for me again.

No.

Wow! Tremendously entertaining thread and truly an exercise in logic, reasoning, and word crafting. A bit of a paradox or feedback loop here.

I must admit that I favor one argument over the other and I won't say which one as it's not really relavent. However, certain abilities are meant to accomplish certain gameplay "objectives" with regards to meta. Sometimes they achieve those objectives and sometimes they have unintended consequences. I could bore y'all with another analogy, but why? So, I propose a compromise and who knows, maybe FFG is reading and will throw it in the next FAQ.

It is obvious that the intent of the Instigator's ability is to be able to "tie down" enemy squadrons and force the opponent into an engagement they didn't want. So, the question had been what target is attackable when a Heavy is in range? I have two suggestions: 1) The attacker must target the Heavy only if the Heavy is at a closer range than the ship. In the event of a tie, the ship is attacked. Or, 2) the Instigator's/Heavy's master decides if the attacker attacks the squadron or the ship since they introduced the controlling effect of the additional 2 engagements (i.e. because the attacker now believes they are engaged with two squadrons that aren't really there, the defender seizes the opportunity to force a less than desirable attack).

As much as I'd like to see this thread keep volleying back and forth and going nowhere, it does have to end at some point. So, are these valid suggestions or shall the Hatfields and McCoys just keep goin' at it? Talk amongst yourselves.

Wow! Tremendously entertaining thread and truly an exercise in logic, reasoning, and word crafting. A bit of a paradox or feedback loop here.

I must admit that I favor one argument over the other and I won't say which one as it's not really relavent. However, certain abilities are meant to accomplish certain gameplay "objectives" with regards to meta. Sometimes they achieve those objectives and sometimes they have unintended consequences. I could bore y'all with another analogy, but why? So, I propose a compromise and who knows, maybe FFG is reading and will throw it in the next FAQ.

It is obvious that the intent of the Instigator's ability is to be able to "tie down" enemy squadrons and force the opponent into an engagement they didn't want. So, the question had been what target is attackable when a Heavy is in range? I have two suggestions: 1) The attacker must target the Heavy only if the Heavy is at a closer range than the ship. In the event of a tie, the ship is attacked. Or, 2) the Instigator's/Heavy's master decides if the attacker attacks the squadron or the ship since they introduced the controlling effect of the additional 2 engagements (i.e. because the attacker now believes they are engaged with two squadrons that aren't really there, the defender seizes the opportunity to force a less than desirable attack).

As much as I'd like to see this thread keep volleying back and forth and going nowhere, it does have to end at some point. So, are these valid suggestions or shall the Hatfields and McCoys just keep goin' at it? Talk amongst yourselves.

Anyway I like your ideas but I think it adds to much complexity to the interaction, we kinda just need a yes/no answer from ffg at this point

Wow! Tremendously entertaining thread and truly an exercise in logic, reasoning, and word crafting. A bit of a paradox or feedback loop here.

I must admit that I favor one argument over the other and I won't say which one as it's not really relavent. However, certain abilities are meant to accomplish certain gameplay "objectives" with regards to meta. Sometimes they achieve those objectives and sometimes they have unintended consequences. I could bore y'all with another analogy, but why? So, I propose a compromise and who knows, maybe FFG is reading and will throw it in the next FAQ.

It is obvious that the intent of the Instigator's ability is to be able to "tie down" enemy squadrons and force the opponent into an engagement they didn't want. So, the question had been what target is attackable when a Heavy is in range? I have two suggestions: 1) The attacker must target the Heavy only if the Heavy is at a closer range than the ship. In the event of a tie, the ship is attacked. Or, 2) the Instigator's/Heavy's master decides if the attacker attacks the squadron or the ship since they introduced the controlling effect of the additional 2 engagements (i.e. because the attacker now believes they are engaged with two squadrons that aren't really there, the defender seizes the opportunity to force a less than desirable attack).

As much as I'd like to see this thread keep volleying back and forth and going nowhere, it does have to end at some point. So, are these valid suggestions or shall the Hatfields and McCoys just keep goin' at it? Talk amongst yourselves.

I'm not seeing them as invalid. It is just that we have in essence a very simple question, "Does Instigator negate Heavy ?" That is what the "sides" come down to in this. The argument that Instigator negates Heavy hinges solely on a ruling in the FAQ that references no keywords in either the answer or the question. So while I appreciate your efforts at peace-making I think I'm going to stick to my guns on this one.

Clonetooper: it only seems complicated because I lack wit and therefore brevity haha.

Frimmel: I hear ya but one day this war's gonna end hahaha the FAQ will be cursed by one side or the other … orrrrrr, maybe both. But, until then, we should be able to come to an agreement on something.

BTW, I'm in favor of the Heavies becoming the mandatory target but I do very much see the logic/validity in the argument for why they shouldn't.

After thinking about it, I also believe that the best compromise (i.e. suggestion for the upcoming FAQ) is the Instigator's owner decides who is attacked.

Just my humble opinions

Wow! Tremendously entertaining thread and truly an exercise in logic, reasoning, and word crafting. A bit of a paradox or feedback loop here.

I must admit that I favor one argument over the other and I won't say which one as it's not really relavent. However, certain abilities are meant to accomplish certain gameplay "objectives" with regards to meta. Sometimes they achieve those objectives and sometimes they have unintended consequences. I could bore y'all with another analogy, but why? So, I propose a compromise and who knows, maybe FFG is reading and will throw it in the next FAQ.

It is obvious that the intent of the Instigator's ability is to be able to "tie down" enemy squadrons and force the opponent into an engagement they didn't want. So, the question had been what target is attackable when a Heavy is in range? I have two suggestions: 1) The attacker must target the Heavy only if the Heavy is at a closer range than the ship. In the event of a tie, the ship is attacked. Or, 2) the Instigator's/Heavy's master decides if the attacker attacks the squadron or the ship since they introduced the controlling effect of the additional 2 engagements (i.e. because the attacker now believes they are engaged with two squadrons that aren't really there, the defender seizes the opportunity to force a less than desirable attack).

As much as I'd like to see this thread keep volleying back and forth and going nowhere, it does have to end at some point. So, are these valid suggestions or shall the Hatfields and McCoys just keep goin' at it? Talk amongst yourselves.

I'm not seeing them as invalid. It is just that we have in essence a very simple question, "Does Instigator negate Heavy ?" That is what the "sides" come down to in this. The argument that Instigator negates Heavy hinges solely on a ruling in the FAQ that references no keywords in either the answer or the question. So while I appreciate your efforts at peace-making I think I'm going to stick to my guns on this one.

No-one is suggesting in any way, shape, or form, that Instigator negates heavy. We just don't think heavy means what you think it means.

This topic...it dumbfounds me. Not to the level of stacking ships during setup, but stil. So let me see if I've got this straight:

Scenario 1:

I have a Raider (wo title), with a TIE bomber in orbit

Along comes an X-wing

The Xwing becomes engaged with the TIE bomber

The Xwing can opt to shoot the TIE or the Raider*

*This is possible since the TIE bomber has Heavy

Scenario 2:

I have a Raider with the Instigator title

Along comes an X-wing

The Xwing becomes engaged with the Insitgator's ghost squadrons.

The Xwing can opt to shoot the Instigator**

** Instigator prevents the Xwing from moving away, but not from shooting at the ship, since the ghost squadrons can't be targeted (clarified by FFG in some e-mail)

Scenario 3:

I have a Raider with the Instigator title

This is where the trouble start, isn't it? Side A claims the Xwing can shoot the Instigator, side B that it must shoot at the TIE bomber, since they are engaged, no?

I must say I lean towards A.

It seems a bit odd that two effects - that alone do NOT prevent the Xwing from shooting at the Instigator - prevent it from doing so when both are present.

I do see the reasoning behind B, but I do find it a little bit contrived.

Looking forward to hearing from FFG on this one.

So let me see if I've got this straight:

Yep, basically. I think both sides have at least a reasonable claim, so it could be a lot worse. People have argued about much more clear cut things before.

This topic...it dumbfounds me. Not to the level of stacking ships during setup, but stil. So let me see if I've got this straight:

Scenario 1:

I have a Raider (wo title), with a TIE bomber in orbit

Along comes an X-wing

The Xwing becomes engaged with the TIE bomber

The Xwing can opt to shoot the TIE or the Raider*

*This is possible since the TIE bomber has Heavy

Scenario 2:

I have a Raider with the Instigator title

Along comes an X-wing

The Xwing becomes engaged with the Insitgator's ghost squadrons.

The Xwing can opt to shoot the Instigator**

** Instigator prevents the Xwing from moving away, but not from shooting at the ship, since the ghost squadrons can't be targeted (clarified by FFG in some e-mail)

Scenario 3:

I have a Raider with the Instigator title

Along comes an X-wing

The Xwing becomes engaged with the TIE bomber

This is where the trouble start, isn't it? Side A claims the Xwing can shoot the Instigator, side B that it must shoot at the TIE bomber, since they are engaged, no?

I must say I lean towards A.

It seems a bit odd that two effects - that alone do NOT prevent the Xwing from shooting at the Instigator - prevent it from doing so when both are present.

I do see the reasoning behind B, but I do find it a little bit contrived.

Looking forward to hearing from FFG on this one.

So your thought on combining 2 situations that individually do not in result X, would still not result in X is sound.

However I would point out the rules in question:

"When a Squadron Attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather then a enemy ship."

Heavy:"YOU do not prevent engaged squadrons from moving or attacking Ships"

Instigator:"enemy squadrons at distance 1 are treated as if they are engaged by 2 additional squadrons, even if they are not engaged"

With that lets take another look at Scenario 2.

Scenario 2:

I have a Raider with the Instigator title

Along comes an X-wing

The Xwing becomes engaged by the ghost squadrons.

- at this point engament rules take effect and the x-wing "must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather then a enemy ship"

But of course it is not possible to attack "ghosts" so this rule is then bypassed and the x-wing may bomb to his hearts content.

Now scenario 3:

Scenario 3:

I have a Raider with the Instigator title

Along comes an X-wing

- at this point engament rules take effect and the x-wing "must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather then a enemy ship"

T

he Xwing becomes engaged with the TIE bomber

-now he has a valid squadron target so must shoot the bomber because THE GHOST SQUADRON IS PREVENTING HIM FROM BOMBING.

Does that make more sense?

I would also like to point out another scenario:

Scenario 4: X-wing toys up to a generic Raider(or any Ship really)

X-wing becomes engaged with a Tie Fighter

- at this point engament rules take effect and the x-wing "must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather then a enemy ship"

X-wing becomes engaged with a Tie bomber

Now the x-wing is engaged with a normal squadron and must attack that before the Ship. However the tie bomber is still a valid target and while it is not preventing the x-wing in any way it can be shot at and the Ship cannot even though heavy doesn't pervent the x-wing from shooting ships (since the tie does, obviously)

Yes, I totally got that line of reasoning. And it's sound enough. I just don't think that's the way FFG intends the cards/rules to interact*, so I'm learning in the other direction (which is kind of weak for me, since I'm usually more sure than I should be).

* Ghost squads = no movement, not even with Grit - but not intended to force a squadron to fire at Heavy squadrons, since they can be ignored in all other circumstances.

But there is no way to prove this, either way, unless FFG clarifies it.

Side note: I would actually prefer the opposite to be true, as it would make Instigator a much more interesting title.

Yes, I totally got that line of reasoning. And it's sound enough. I just don't think that's the way FFG intends the cards/rules to interact*, so I'm learning in the other direction (which is kind of weak for me, since I'm usually more sure than I should be).

* Ghost squads = no movement, not even with Grit - but not intended to force a squadron to fire at Heavy squadrons, since they can be ignored in all other circumstances.

But there is no way to prove this, either way, unless FFG clarifies it.

In regards to the tournament, Biggs Agrees:

Probably the squadrons could attack the ship.

I see no reason why they couldn't. Heavy means that squadrons can (effectively) ignore the consequences of engagement. The imaginary squadrons do not inhibit the attacking of a ship.

Engagement says that enemy squadrons must be attacked if possible, but Heavy overrides that for Heavy squadrons.

I'd say the opposite - Heavy modifies just the engagement for that squadron, but there are now two additional "phantom" squadrons engaging that do not have Heavy . So, because of engagement, (and without Heavy on those Phantom squadrons) the enemy fighters have to shoot squadrons if able. There are squadrons to shoot (that just happen to all have Heavy .

So no, I'd say that if there are any squadrons also engaged with the fighters around the Instigator, they have to shoot the squadrons before they can engage the Raider.

Wow! Tremendously entertaining thread and truly an exercise in logic, reasoning, and word crafting. A bit of a paradox or feedback loop here.

I must admit that I favor one argument over the other and I won't say which one as it's not really relavent. However, certain abilities are meant to accomplish certain gameplay "objectives" with regards to meta. Sometimes they achieve those objectives and sometimes they have unintended consequences. I could bore y'all with another analogy, but why? So, I propose a compromise and who knows, maybe FFG is reading and will throw it in the next FAQ.

It is obvious that the intent of the Instigator's ability is to be able to "tie down" enemy squadrons and force the opponent into an engagement they didn't want. So, the question had been what target is attackable when a Heavy is in range? I have two suggestions: 1) The attacker must target the Heavy only if the Heavy is at a closer range than the ship. In the event of a tie, the ship is attacked. Or, 2) the Instigator's/Heavy's master decides if the attacker attacks the squadron or the ship since they introduced the controlling effect of the additional 2 engagements (i.e. because the attacker now believes they are engaged with two squadrons that aren't really there, the defender seizes the opportunity to force a less than desirable attack).

As much as I'd like to see this thread keep volleying back and forth and going nowhere, it does have to end at some point. So, are these valid suggestions or shall the Hatfields and McCoys just keep goin' at it? Talk amongst yourselves.

I'm not seeing them as invalid. It is just that we have in essence a very simple question, "Does Instigator negate Heavy ?" That is what the "sides" come down to in this. The argument that Instigator negates Heavy hinges solely on a ruling in the FAQ that references no keywords in either the answer or the question. So while I appreciate your efforts at peace-making I think I'm going to stick to my guns on this one.

No-one is suggesting in any way, shape, or form, that Instigator negates heavy. We just don't think heavy means what you think it means.

If I have to preferentially attack a TIE Bomber with Heavy (You do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving) when the only game pieces in play at appropriate ranges/distances are aforementioned TIE Bomber, Enemy Squadron, and Instigator (which makes no mention of Heavy ) equipped Raider friendly to TIE Bomber why must the Enemy Squadron attack the TIE Bomber? A piece that specifically says it doesn't prevent attacking ships?

How does the enemy squadron not have a choice of either the TIE Bomber or the Raider? My only conclusion is that Instigator is being read as negating Heavy. And it is being read as such because of this:

Side note: I would actually prefer the opposite to be true, as it would make Instigator a much more interesting title.

This is only an argument because everyone on the Must-shoot-the -Heavy- squadron side would rather that be so. This isn't a rules argument really. It is a change Instigator to mean something other than as written petition.

Dude, greenight wasn't even arguing in that post, layoff

Yes, I totally got that line of reasoning. And it's sound enough. I just don't think that's the way FFG intends the cards/rules to interact*, so I'm learning in the other direction (which is kind of weak for me, since I'm usually more sure than I should be).

* Ghost squads = no movement, not even with Grit - but not intended to force a squadron to fire at Heavy squadrons, since they can be ignored in all other circumstances.

But there is no way to prove this, either way, unless FFG clarifies it.

It doesn't need "proven." There is no precedent for ignoring a keyword in any game I have ever played absent of a specific wording or ruling to do so. And there is no wording in any of this to specifically ignore the Heavy keyword.

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.

Dude, greenight wasn't even arguing in that post, layoff

I am not getting on his case. He simply said out loud the preference I could easily grab as a quote. I am pointing out that as motivation for the argument that Instigator negates Heavy .

Many lolz died to bring us this thread.

Wow! Tremendously entertaining thread and truly an exercise in logic, reasoning, and word crafting. A bit of a paradox or feedback loop here.

I must admit that I favor one argument over the other and I won't say which one as it's not really relavent. However, certain abilities are meant to accomplish certain gameplay "objectives" with regards to meta. Sometimes they achieve those objectives and sometimes they have unintended consequences. I could bore y'all with another analogy, but why? So, I propose a compromise and who knows, maybe FFG is reading and will throw it in the next FAQ.

It is obvious that the intent of the Instigator's ability is to be able to "tie down" enemy squadrons and force the opponent into an engagement they didn't want. So, the question had been what target is attackable when a Heavy is in range? I have two suggestions: 1) The attacker must target the Heavy only if the Heavy is at a closer range than the ship. In the event of a tie, the ship is attacked. Or, 2) the Instigator's/Heavy's master decides if the attacker attacks the squadron or the ship since they introduced the controlling effect of the additional 2 engagements (i.e. because the attacker now believes they are engaged with two squadrons that aren't really there, the defender seizes the opportunity to force a less than desirable attack).

As much as I'd like to see this thread keep volleying back and forth and going nowhere, it does have to end at some point. So, are these valid suggestions or shall the Hatfields and McCoys just keep goin' at it? Talk amongst yourselves.

I'm not seeing them as invalid. It is just that we have in essence a very simple question, "Does Instigator negate Heavy ?" That is what the "sides" come down to in this. The argument that Instigator negates Heavy hinges solely on a ruling in the FAQ that references no keywords in either the answer or the question. So while I appreciate your efforts at peace-making I think I'm going to stick to my guns on this one.

No-one is suggesting in any way, shape, or form, that Instigator negates heavy. We just don't think heavy means what you think it means.

If I have to preferentially attack a TIE Bomber with Heavy (You do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving) when the only game pieces in play at appropriate ranges/distances are aforementioned TIE Bomber, Enemy Squadron, and Instigator (which makes no mention of Heavy ) equipped Raider friendly to TIE Bomber why must the Enemy Squadron attack the TIE Bomber? A piece that specifically says it doesn't prevent attacking ships?

The T/B isn't preventing the X-W from attacking a ship. Instigator is preventing it. The T/B simply happens to be the available target.

You seem to be claiming that the T/B is "preventing" the X-W from attacking, which is not true. The X-W being engaged by non-heavy squadrons is "preventing."

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.

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.

Wow! Tremendously entertaining thread and truly an exercise in logic, reasoning, and word crafting. A bit of a paradox or feedback loop here.

I must admit that I favor one argument over the other and I won't say which one as it's not really relavent. However, certain abilities are meant to accomplish certain gameplay "objectives" with regards to meta. Sometimes they achieve those objectives and sometimes they have unintended consequences. I could bore y'all with another analogy, but why? So, I propose a compromise and who knows, maybe FFG is reading and will throw it in the next FAQ.

It is obvious that the intent of the Instigator's ability is to be able to "tie down" enemy squadrons and force the opponent into an engagement they didn't want. So, the question had been what target is attackable when a Heavy is in range? I have two suggestions: 1) The attacker must target the Heavy only if the Heavy is at a closer range than the ship. In the event of a tie, the ship is attacked. Or, 2) the Instigator's/Heavy's master decides if the attacker attacks the squadron or the ship since they introduced the controlling effect of the additional 2 engagements (i.e. because the attacker now believes they are engaged with two squadrons that aren't really there, the defender seizes the opportunity to force a less than desirable attack).

As much as I'd like to see this thread keep volleying back and forth and going nowhere, it does have to end at some point. So, are these valid suggestions or shall the Hatfields and McCoys just keep goin' at it? Talk amongst yourselves.

I'm not seeing them as invalid. It is just that we have in essence a very simple question, "Does Instigator negate Heavy ?" That is what the "sides" come down to in this. The argument that Instigator negates Heavy hinges solely on a ruling in the FAQ that references no keywords in either the answer or the question. So while I appreciate your efforts at peace-making I think I'm going to stick to my guns on this one.

No-one is suggesting in any way, shape, or form, that Instigator negates heavy. We just don't think heavy means what you think it means.

If I have to preferentially attack a TIE Bomber with Heavy (You do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving) when the only game pieces in play at appropriate ranges/distances are aforementioned TIE Bomber, Enemy Squadron, and Instigator (which makes no mention of Heavy ) equipped Raider friendly to TIE Bomber why must the Enemy Squadron attack the TIE Bomber? A piece that specifically says it doesn't prevent attacking ships?

The T/B isn't preventing the X-W from attacking a ship. Instigator is preventing it. The T/B simply happens to be the available target.

You seem to be claiming that the T/B is "preventing" the X-W from attacking, which is not true. The X-W being engaged by non-heavy squadrons is "preventing."

:blink:

Are you sure that's what you want to go with?

Wow! Tremendously entertaining thread and truly an exercise in logic, reasoning, and word crafting. A bit of a paradox or feedback loop here.

I must admit that I favor one argument over the other and I won't say which one as it's not really relavent. However, certain abilities are meant to accomplish certain gameplay "objectives" with regards to meta. Sometimes they achieve those objectives and sometimes they have unintended consequences. I could bore y'all with another analogy, but why? So, I propose a compromise and who knows, maybe FFG is reading and will throw it in the next FAQ.

It is obvious that the intent of the Instigator's ability is to be able to "tie down" enemy squadrons and force the opponent into an engagement they didn't want. So, the question had been what target is attackable when a Heavy is in range? I have two suggestions: 1) The attacker must target the Heavy only if the Heavy is at a closer range than the ship. In the event of a tie, the ship is attacked. Or, 2) the Instigator's/Heavy's master decides if the attacker attacks the squadron or the ship since they introduced the controlling effect of the additional 2 engagements (i.e. because the attacker now believes they are engaged with two squadrons that aren't really there, the defender seizes the opportunity to force a less than desirable attack).

As much as I'd like to see this thread keep volleying back and forth and going nowhere, it does have to end at some point. So, are these valid suggestions or shall the Hatfields and McCoys just keep goin' at it? Talk amongst yourselves.

I'm not seeing them as invalid. It is just that we have in essence a very simple question, "Does Instigator negate Heavy ?" That is what the "sides" come down to in this. The argument that Instigator negates Heavy hinges solely on a ruling in the FAQ that references no keywords in either the answer or the question. So while I appreciate your efforts at peace-making I think I'm going to stick to my guns on this one.

No-one is suggesting in any way, shape, or form, that Instigator negates heavy. We just don't think heavy means what you think it means.

If I have to preferentially attack a TIE Bomber with Heavy (You do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving) when the only game pieces in play at appropriate ranges/distances are aforementioned TIE Bomber, Enemy Squadron, and Instigator (which makes no mention of Heavy ) equipped Raider friendly to TIE Bomber why must the Enemy Squadron attack the TIE Bomber? A piece that specifically says it doesn't prevent attacking ships?

The T/B isn't preventing the X-W from attacking a ship. Instigator is preventing it. The T/B simply happens to be the available target.

You seem to be claiming that the T/B is "preventing" the X-W from attacking, which is not true. The X-W being engaged by non-heavy squadrons is "preventing."

:blink:

Are you sure that's what you want to go with?

Well I responded to a post making the claim that no one is saying that Instigator negates Heavy . His rebuttal to my post is to say the Instigator is negating Heavy . You're not seeing how I might find that a bit amusing?

But to respond directly to his argument (i.e. -- The X-W being engaged by non-heavy squadrons is "preventing.") where in the rules do non- Heavy squadrons force you to attack a Heavy squadron?

I'm following along correctly aren't I? i.e. The phantom squadrons created by the Instigator title causes the enemy squadron to have to attack a "real" squadron even if that "real" squadron is Heavy or put more succinctly Instigator negates the Heavy keyword.

Instigator and Unfriendly squadron . Instigator may be attacked per the FAQ

Heavy squadron, Friendly to Heavy squadron ship, and unfriendly squadron . Unfriendly squadron has choice of Heavy squadron or Friendly to Heavy squadron ship as targets.

Heavy squadron, two Friendly to Heavy squadron non- Heavy squadrons, and unfriendly squadron . Unfriendly squadron has choice of Heavy squadron or Friendly to Heavy squadron non- Heavy squadrons as targets.

Heavy squadron, Instigator friendly to Heavy squadron, and unfriendly squadron . Despite the prior three circumstances the Unfriendly squadron MUST attack the Heavy squadron?!? Because it is an "actual squadron?"