My 2 cents (at least until that email is found): the engaged squadrons cannot attack another ship and must attack the Raider.

My 2 cents (at least until that email is found): the engaged squadrons cannot attack another ship and must attack the Raider.

Why the restriction?

I really dont see any issue as it seems clear that if you have no squadrons with your raider the enemy fighters can target any ship in range, the point of the title which I only 4 points after all is not about preventing shots but locking down and countering Intel which it does so **** well

Add another voice for "of course they can attack any ship they please, being engaged by phantom squadrons does not dictate which ship they can attack if no real squadrons are keeping them honest, they just can't move is all."

My 2 cents (at least until that email is found): the engaged squadrons cannot attack another ship and must attack the Raider.

No. Nothing to support this.

My 2 cents (at least until that email is found): the engaged squadrons cannot attack another ship and must attack the Raider.

No. Nothing to support this.

My 2 cents (at least until that email is found): the engaged squadrons cannot attack another ship and must attack the Raider.

No. Nothing to support this.

I would say the wording in the FAQ supports this because it only specifies you may attack "this ship", in reference to the Instigator. In my opinion, any other interpretation is taking liberties that are not there in the rules as written. Why have a title that treats fighters as if they are engaged if we don't actually treat them as if they are engaged? It seems to me the designers are making a special exception to the engagement rules just to make it possible for fighters tied down by the instigator title's phantom fighters to actually do something (attack Instigator specifically) instead of just sitting there unable to do anything. I think the FAQ ruling is meant to keep instigator from completely locking down fighters forever without them getting to shoot at anything. I do not feel that it is clear that they can go beyond what is written in the FAQ and attack any ship in range (they must kill Instigator first). That may indeed be their intent, but it is not what is written in the FAQ. Until they update it or answer an email I think the issue is open to debate.

Enemy squadrons at distance 1 are treated as if they are engaged by 2 additional squadrons, even if they are not currently engaged.

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

Can my squadron attack a ship?

--> Is it engaged? (Treated as) Yes.

--> Is it possible to attack an engaged squadron? No.

The end. You can attack any ship you want. No ambiguity.

My 2 cents (at least until that email is found): the engaged squadrons cannot attack another ship and must attack the Raider.

The Raider has Escort?

Escort is the only rule that limits your choice of target(s) and the Raider doesn't have it so I am not too sure why you would make this limitation.

I feel like people ITT are treating Instigator as though it said "this ship engages squadrons as though it were a squadron." Read the actual text on the card, guys, because that's not what it does.

My 2 cents (at least until that email is found): the engaged squadrons cannot attack another ship and must attack the Raider.

No. Nothing to support this.

I would say the wording in the FAQ supports this because it only specifies you may attack "this ship", in reference to the Instigator. In my opinion, any other interpretation is taking liberties that are not there in the rules as written. Why have a title that treats fighters as if they are engaged if we don't actually treat them as if they are engaged? It seems to me the designers are making a special exception to the engagement rules just to make it possible for fighters tied down by the instigator title's phantom fighters to actually do something (attack Instigator specifically) instead of just sitting there unable to do anything. I think the FAQ ruling is meant to keep instigator from completely locking down fighters forever without them getting to shoot at anything. I do not feel that it is clear that they can go beyond what is written in the FAQ and attack any ship in range (they must kill Instigator first). That may indeed be their intent, but it is not what is written in the FAQ. Until they update it or answer an email I think the issue is open to debate.

The title treats them as engaged not to prevent you attacking other things but to prevent the enemy squadrons from being able to move.. It's 4points... It was designed to counter Intel nothing more.. Your really reaching with the way you are interpreting the FAQ

Also wording in the FAQ is talking about being able to target the ship if the are no squadrons around, it has nothing to do with limiting what you can shot at with regards to ships. if you were forced to only fire at the ship it would use the key word *Must* but it does not

My interpretation of the FAQ comes from the literal meaning of the word "this" in the phrase "this ship."

"This" does not mean "any", "this" MUST be used in reference to a specific thing. In fact, here is the definition of the word "this":

this

T͟His/

pronoun

1. used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced.

"is this your bag?"

2. referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned.

"the company was transformed, and Ward had played a vital role in bringing this about"

determiner

1. used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced.

"don't listen to this guy"

2. referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned.

"there was a court case resulting from this incident"

adverb

1. to the degree or extent indicated.

"they can't handle a job this big"

No form of the word "this" can be interpreted to mean "any".

"This" always refers to a specific person or thing. In this case, it refers specifically to Instigator.

If anyone can understand the definition of the word and still say that my interpretation of the rules isn't even debatable, I don't know what to say. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but how can you say my interpretation is baseless?

I don't think the keyword MUST is necessary because "this" is specific enough. In fact "this" can only be specific or else the word is being used incorrectly.

Like I've said, FFG may have intended to mean "ships" or "this or any ship in range" but that's not what they wrote. I'm going off of the RAW because that is all we have to go off of until the matter is clarified.

Found it.

We can all go back to... whatever we were doing, now.



https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/194542-instigator-and-squadrons-engaged/page-2#entry1930560

That is exactly what I wanted to see. I was wrong.

Thank you Dras!

How long did you watch the fireworks before posting?

:-))

JK, haha

Oh, and I would like to go on record that I had no doubt that you'd find it, I just imagine Instigator being captained by this wild and crazy person who can fly that thing so amazingly well and gunnery crews so accurate and well synced, that squadrons ignore it to their peril. In other words, it literally does engage them and it's so good at engaging that it's like 2 squadrons put together … probably a Corellian. ;-)

I'd been looking for this one almost non-stop when I had spare moments...

... Trouble was, I wasn't looking back far enough.

This was actually one of the earlier points that was clarified...

And then we added the whole what if the squadrons were heavy point, debated that to death, and because that was debated to death - it kind of flooded the market on answers and those were all that could be searched.

So I apologise for how how long it did take for me to find, in actuality.

No apologies man. If anyone was gonna find it, it was you. Thanks.

If anyone should apologize, it's me for beating a dead horse. For some reason this one really stuck in my craw. Anyway, thanks again, Dras!

So, it looks like I was right? Or they've changed their minds. I got this response today:

In response to your question:

Rules Question:

I have a question about the Instigator title. The faq states that "Squadrons can attack this ship if they are not engaged by an actual enemy squadron without heavy in the play area." Does the phrase "this ship" refer specifically to Instigator. I.E. Does this mean (assuming their are no squadrons friendly to Instigator nearby)that squadrons engaged by the instigator title can only attack the Instigator, or can they attack any ship in range? If they can attack any ship in range, would it be possible to change the wording in the faq to avoid confusion?

Yes, “this ship” in the Instigator entry refers to the ship equipped with Instigator. A squadron that is engaged with Instigator and no other enemy squadrons cannot attack another ship at distance 1. That squadron can only declare Instigator as its target.

Thanks for your question!

Michael Gernes

Game Producer

[email protected]

That is, quite simply, broken.

Yeah, I don't understand the rationale for that response either.

Well, expect to see Instigator a lot more now. And not just Instigator , but Soontir with Escorts. Want to bomb the ship that's holding your Intel-protected squadrons in place? Take Soontir damage! Want to shoot the squadrons? Take Soontir damage! Except you, IG-88, because you're special. #Iggy4life

So there is a flip-flop on this? Or maybe more a trying to have it both ways on this? We have one way it works for squadrons and another way it works for ships?

So there is a flip-flop on this? Or maybe more a trying to have it both ways on this? We have one way it works for squadrons and another way it works for ships?

Actually I see a logic in this ruling, if you look at Instigator as a ship that is also a squadron.

So there is a flip-flop on this? Or maybe more a trying to have it both ways on this? We have one way it works for squadrons and another way it works for ships?

Actually I see a logic in this ruling, if you look at Instigator as a ship that is also a squadron.

Right, but a) nowhere does the upgrade say or even imply that, and b) for four points?