Hello, Paul.

In response to your question:

When a ship with the "Fighter Coordination Team" upgrade moves squadrons with this upgrade, does the squadron's movement from this upgrade trigger cards and effects that have squadron movement triggers? The specific triggers that comes to mind are:

For reference, the "Fighter Coordination Team" card text is:

"After you execute a maneuver, you may select a number of unengaged friendly squadrons up to your squadron value at close-medium range. Those squadrons may move up to distance 1."

(1) When "Mauler Mithel TIE Fighter Squadron" is moved with "Fighter Coordination Team", does he do 1 damage to engaged squadrons?

For reference, Mauler's card text is: "After you move, each squadron engaged with you suffers 1 damage."

(2) When a squadron is moved with "Fighter Coordination Team" onto the Station obstacle, does it recover one hull point?

For reference, the Station text under "Obstacles" in the Rules Reference Guide (Pg 8) states: Station: The ship can discard one of its faceup or facedown damage cards. The squadron can recover one hull point.

Thank you, Paul

-----------

Yes, when a squadron moves due to the effect of Fighter Coordination Team that counts as a move for resolving effects such as Mauler Mithel or the station obstacle’s effect. Please note that Mauler Mithel (or another squadron) cannot move if already engaged, unless another effect allows that squadron to ignore engagement.

Thanks for your question!

Michael Gernes

Game Producer

Oh thats actually sort of interesting. So then a heavy fighter would be unable to prevent the move as well? Because Tycho doesn't ignore engagement either, his text is "You are not prevented from moving or attacking ships while you are engaged" and heavy is "you do not prevent engaged squadrons from attacking ships or moving".

Heavy squads DO prevent moving via Fighter Coordination Team, because they are engaging enemy squads at distance 1 and FCT's restriction is tied to engagement. The last part of his email is something that can't occur in the game (breaking engagement), ... yet?

Grit?

Grit Doesn't Ignore Engagement.

It, like Heavy, allows you to move if engaged.

But again, the 'allowance' for FCT is "un engaged"

As Of Yet, there is no in-game effect that ignores engagement, with the kinda-sorta-exception of Obstructions. Since there is also no upgrade card that "causes" obstructions at any time other than an attack.

Probably something in the Arquitens or Pelta packages...

Probably something in the Arquitens or Pelta packages...

The Fleet Command "All Wings Form..." seems to be a prime contender there.

Spend a Token, and all of your squads ignore engagement for the turn and can do what ever they want....

Oh geez - Admiral Chiraneau

Derp.

Oh geez - Admiral Chiraneau

Derp.

Different windows of opportunity

Oh geez - Admiral Chiraneau

Derp.

No, Still doesn't count.

Firstly, Chiraneu is "Squadrons You Activate" for one... Fighter Coordination Teams do not "Activate".

Secondly, with Fighter coordination Teams, you select "an amount of unengaged squadrons". Flat out. Unengaged. Not, "Engaged, but able to move"... Unengaged.

The problem is, I suspect that Michael was not particularly rigorous in choosing his wording when sending off an emailed response to a rules question. Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly comfortable with interpreting his reply rigorously in the interim until the actual FAQ is released, but I feel a strong sense of foreboding that he may in fact be referring informally to things like Intel, Heavy, and Tycho. As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced by Yavaris' unstoppable speed-4 B-wings Of Doom.

The problem is, I suspect that Michael was not particularly rigorous in choosing his wording when sending off an emailed response to a rules question. Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly comfortable with interpreting his reply rigorously in the interim until the actual FAQ is released, but I feel a strong sense of foreboding that he may in fact be referring informally to things like Intel, Heavy, and Tycho. As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced by Yavaris' unstoppable speed-4 B-wings Of Doom.

Rigorous or not. He is the person who does the questions for Armada now, and there is no-one else to contradict him.

So we take the answer as presented, which, right now, makes no difference.

What is the problem with his email? I'm not seeing where the issue is except for the comment on something to ignore engagement, which we don't have yet. His response doesn't change anything. Just ends this thread.

Oh geez - Admiral Chiraneau

Derp.

No, Still doesn't count.

Firstly, Chiraneu is "Squadrons You Activate" for one... Fighter Coordination Teams do not "Activate".

Secondly, with Fighter coordination Teams, you select "an amount of unengaged squadrons". Flat out. Unengaged. Not, "Engaged, but able to move"... Unengaged.

I guess if I read the whole post/comment, I would have avoided this whole mess.

But who does that on the internet anyway?

The problem is, I suspect that Michael was not particularly rigorous in choosing his wording when sending off an emailed response to a rules question. Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly comfortable with interpreting his reply rigorously in the interim until the actual FAQ is released, but I feel a strong sense of foreboding that he may in fact be referring informally to things like Intel, Heavy, and Tycho. As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced by Yavaris' unstoppable speed-4 B-wings Of Doom.

Very much this. Before that email, I would have said Tycho can't move, heavy stops FCT, etc. Maybe we just send a follow up asking him to clarify?

The problem is, I suspect that Michael was not particularly rigorous in choosing his wording when sending off an emailed response to a rules question. Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly comfortable with interpreting his reply rigorously in the interim until the actual FAQ is released, but I feel a strong sense of foreboding that he may in fact be referring informally to things like Intel, Heavy, and Tycho. As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced by Yavaris' unstoppable speed-4 B-wings Of Doom.

Rigorous or not. He is the person who does the questions for Armada now, and there is no-one else to contradict him.

So we take the answer as presented, which, right now, makes no difference.

Right. Which is exactly what I said.

But it doesn't really impact the point I was making. Namely, that it appears there is a good chance that the intent is different from the clarification as written, and that the FAQ--which I assume will be more rigorously written than one guy's email response, irrespective of that Michael's authority--will more precisely specify that effects like Heavy allow FCT to move squadrons despite engagement. I'm not saying anyone else will contradict him, but rather that he may contradict himself.

Again, though, until and unless the FAQ reverses it, yes, the email should be read rigorously if you're basing a ruling on it.

I know man, it just sounds like you're on a Mission to, for lack of a better term "Catch him out, as he's been caught out in the past." somewhat...

That was not my intent, and apologize if that's how it came across. My intent is to express trepidation of the impact on the game if they rule that FCT can move squadrons past Heavy. That's all.

I think Trepidation has been expressed as far as it should be... WHEN and IF this actually becomes an issue, same as such with the Instigator/Heavy interaction we had in the past, I feel we should press it then...

Or, I mean, maybe its just because I'm so **** happy we finally got something, I don't want to press points on it... Not at least until my November Question is perhaps, finally, maybe answered...

That was not my intent, and apologize if that's how it came across. My intent is to express trepidation of the impact on the game if they rule that FCT can move squadrons past Heavy. That's all.

How on Earth would that be rule-able? Heavy and Engagement are two very different things.

This thread confuses me no end.

It's just the way he wrote it greenie. By letter its fine. You can't move with FCT if engaged. But why add the part about ignoring engagment, when there is currently no effect in the game that eliminates the engaged state, unless you are referring to things lime heavy or tycho? I just think we need him to clarify.

It's just the way he wrote it greenie. By letter its fine. You can't move with FCT if engaged. But why add the part about ignoring engagment, when there is currently no effect in the game that eliminates the engaged state, unless you are referring to things lime heavy or tycho? I just think we need him to clarify.

Because it underlines that there is CURRENTLY NO WAY TO IGNORE ENGAGEMENT. But there COULD BE, in the future.

See, you made me go capital. It's all your fault.

Thats certainly possible. Its also possible he's overworked and choose his wording poorly.

Its also possible he's overworked

This is the root concern here.

Or, there is much overanalyzing, as usual:

"Please note that Mauler Mithel (or another squadron) cannot move if already engaged, unless another effect allows that squadron to ignore engagement."

Pray tell, what's problematic about this? He's just stating what we already know.