Just chiming in with my thoughts.

Valen and Instigator can tie down and engage enemy squads, while the Tie/B cannot.

You can never attack Valen since the Tie/B is there, therefore Valen is an illegal target.

Thus, an enemy squad can shoot Instigator because the Tie/B has Heavy.

Valen's "cannot" is an absolute golden rule and overrides any other FAQ or RRG. Essentially, Valen is removed from the equation in regards to a legal target for a squad to attack.

I have no idea how FFG will rule on this, but...

Wouldn't this basically remove Valen's engagement rules? Essentially making him heavy?

It does not make Valen essentially a Heavy squadron. He will still prevent movement barring other keywords and so on.

Why should Valen's ability negate Heavy?

Valen's ability doesn't negate heavy. Valen's engagement makes it so that you have to shoot at a squadron if possible. There's a tie/b you can shoot at, you do it, disregarding that squadron heavy keywords "*you* do not prevent..." because it isn't the tie/b which prevents the shot at the ship.

What DiabloAzul laid out is at best RAI, and I don't disagree that's how it should work.

RAW say otherwise, unless you can show what's breaking Valen's engagement with actual rule quotes.

The RAW is that you don't have to attack a Heavy squadron. How does engagement to Valen mean you have to attack a Heavy squadron? Why does an ability that says nothing about Heavy negate Heavy?

This is EXACTLY the same argument as Instigator. And the precedent per the FAQ is that you don't ignore Heavy.

The RAW is that you don't have to attack a Heavy squadron. How does engagement to Valen mean you have to attack a Heavy squadron? Why does an ability that says nothing about Heavy negate Heavy?

This is EXACTLY the same argument as Instigator. And the precedent per the FAQ is that you don't ignore Heavy.

The RAW is not that you "don't have to attack a Heavy squadron." The raw is that a squadron with the Heavy keyword does not prevent you from moving or attacking ships.

It isn't the TIE Bomber keeping you from attacking ships, it's Valen. Valen doesn't have the heavy keyword. Thus, if you are engaged with him you can not attack a ship.

Since you are engaged with a non-heavy squadron you must attack squadrons. This leaves you with Valen or the TIE B as a target.

Valen's special rule means you can't attack Valen. Thus you must attack the TIE B.

Valen's ability doesn't negate heavy. Valen's engagement makes it so that you have to shoot at a squadron if possible.

There are no different engagement types, each with different requirements. Valen, the TIE Bomber and Instigator's phantoms all do the exact same thing, they change the Z-95's status from "free" to "engaged". They all trigger the same RRG entry:

The Z-95 must attack a squadron if possible rather than a ship. This is true whether the Z-95 is engaged only by one of the above, or by all of them. There are no degrees: the rule is either triggered, or it isn't. Valen doesn't trigger it any more, or any differently, than the TIE Bomber or the Instigator phantoms do.

Then we get to the list of targets to evaluate whether or not the shot is possible. Neither Valen nor the phantoms are valid targets.

The only valid engaged squadron is the Bomber. But a Heavy squadron cannot prevent an attack on a ship - by its very nature, Heavy's sole* purpose is to provide a direct, explicit exception to the basic rule. And, again, the card overrules the RRG.

Thus, the mandatory targets are not valid, and the valid target is not mandatory. So there is no obstacle to attack the ship.

*: aside from preventing moving, but you get the point.

There's a tie/b you can shoot at, you do it, disregarding that squadron heavy keywords "*you* do not prevent..." because it isn't the tie/b which prevents the shot at the ship.

That's hard to reconcile with the Z-95 having to shoot at it. If its presence means you can't attack Instigator because you must attack it instead, then it is preventing the shot, whether or not Valen is there. Which contradicts Heavy.

What DiabloAzul laid out is at best RAI, and I don't disagree that's how it should work.

RAW say otherwise, unless you can show what's breaking Valen's engagement with actual rule quotes.

Huh? What I argued was strictly RAW.

Err, yes, this is exactly the same argument as instigator because it's exactly the same problem, which called for a faq the first time.

The RAW is that a heavy squad doesn't prevent you from shooting a ship. Not that you don't have to attack a heavy squadron. Valen still prevents you from shooting a ship.

It isn't the TIE Bomber keeping you from attacking ships, it's Valen. Valen doesn't have the heavy keyword. Thus, if you are engaged with him you can not attack a ship.

Sorry, but no. This is the exact same argument used by some in the Instigator debate last year:

"It isn't the TIE Bomber keeping you from attacking ships, it's Instigator's phantom squadrons. The phantom squadrons doen't have the heavy keyword. Thus, if you are engaged with him you can not attack a ship."

The exact same thing. And FFG already ruled against it.

It isn't the TIE Bomber keeping you from attacking ships, it's Valen. Valen doesn't have the heavy keyword. Thus, if you are engaged with him you can not attack a ship.

Sorry, but no. This is the exact same argument used by some in the Instigator debate last year:

"It isn't the TIE Bomber keeping you from attacking ships, it's Instigator's phantom squadrons. The phantom squadrons doen't have the heavy keyword. Thus, if you are engaged with him you can not attack a ship."

The exact same thing. And FFG already ruled against it.

No it's not the exact same thing. These are two real squadrons, not phantom squadrons created by a ship title.

And the rules are clear that if you are engaged by a non-heavy squadron you are unable to attack ships if it is possible to attack a squadron.

You can attack the TIE Bomber squadron, thus you may not attack a ship.

Can confirm, made that argument.

Edit: The one DA is quoting.

See here:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/226449-official-ffg-email-clarifications-paste-here/?p=2339357

Hello, Bjørn,

In response to your questions:

Rules Question:
Interaction between Instigator and Heavy Could we please have a ruling regarding the interaction between Instigator and the Heavy keyword? In effect: would a squadron engaged with Instigator and a Heavy squadron be able to shoot at the ship? Or do the ghost squadrons invalidate Heavy and force the squadron to shoot at the Heavy squadron?


A squadron engaged with Instigator and a Heavy squadron can still attack the Instigator. The Heavy keyword makes the enemy squadron an optional target rather than a mandatory target, and Instigator’s ghost squadron cannot be attacked because they aren’t viable targets.

[...]

Thanks for playing!


James Kniffen
Game Designer
Fantasy Flight Games

EDIT: Emphasis mine.

There's nothing about "real" or "imaginary" here. There are mandatory vs optional targets, and valid vs invalid ones.

(Also, I just noticed I was looking at an older FAQ version that didn't mention "without heavy" in the Instigator entry. Oops. But it doesn't change the above.)

It isn't the TIE Bomber keeping you from attacking ships, it's Valen. Valen doesn't have the heavy keyword. Thus, if you are engaged with him you can not attack a ship.

Sorry, but no. This is the exact same argument used by some in the Instigator debate last year:

"It isn't the TIE Bomber keeping you from attacking ships, it's Instigator's phantom squadrons. The phantom squadrons doen't have the heavy keyword. Thus, if you are engaged with him you can not attack a ship."

The exact same thing. And FFG already ruled against it.

No it's not the exact same thing. These are two real squadrons, not phantom squadrons created by a ship title.

And the rules are clear that if you are engaged by a non-heavy squadron you are unable to attack ships if it is possible to attack a squadron.

You can attack the TIE Bomber squadron, thus you may not attack a ship.

Its the same thing dude. There was a bomber in the original instigator scenario also, and Valens engagment is no more "engagegy" then the instigators phantom squads. Same dealie.

It isn't the TIE Bomber keeping you from attacking ships, it's Valen. Valen doesn't have the heavy keyword. Thus, if you are engaged with him you can not attack a ship.

Sorry, but no. This is the exact same argument used by some in the Instigator debate last year:

"It isn't the TIE Bomber keeping you from attacking ships, it's Instigator's phantom squadrons. The phantom squadrons doen't have the heavy keyword. Thus, if you are engaged with him you can not attack a ship."

The exact same thing. And FFG already ruled against it.

No it's not the exact same thing. These are two real squadrons, not phantom squadrons created by a ship title.

And the rules are clear that if you are engaged by a non-heavy squadron you are unable to attack ships if it is possible to attack a squadron.

You can attack the TIE Bomber squadron, thus you may not attack a ship.

Its the same thing dude. There was a bomber in the original instigator scenario also, and Valens engagment is no more "engagegy" then the instigators phantom squads. Same dealie.

This doesn't even require Instigator. It's just a squadron engaged by both Valen and a TIE Bomber wanting to attack a ship.

Valen is non-heavy. Thus the squadron can not attack the ship unless it is unable to attack any other squadron.

The TIE Bomber is a valid squadron to be attacked. Thus the TIE Bomber must be attacked.

There's no ambiguity at all.

Instigators Phantoms are not legal targets, and neither is Valen.

So fire away at the ship!

Instigators Phantoms are not legal targets, and neither is Valen.

So fire away at the ship!

The TIE Bomber is a legal target.

So no firing at that ship!

And yet, without a faq entry, RAW dictate that Valen prevents the shot.

The FAQ patch they did to fix last years issue didn't fix heavy not really being what's apparently intended, it only fixed the phantom squads case.

This has now been broken again by Valen.

I'll repeat, I agree with you on intent.

Instigators Phantoms are not legal targets, and neither is Valen.

So fire away at the ship!

The TIE Bomber is a legal target.

So no firing at that ship!

Unless you're the TO, there is no stopping me. I understand both sides of the argument and there is RAW/FAQ supporting both IMO.

Only an FAQ will dictate how this interaction will work.

But let's see if we can beat the RLB page record and run around in circular arguments and say the same thing over and over again!

...I give up.

Instigators Phantoms are not legal targets, and neither is Valen.

So fire away at the ship!

The TIE Bomber is a legal target.

So no firing at that ship!

Unless you're the TO, there is no stopping me. I understand both sides of the argument and there is RAW/FAQ supporting both IMO.

Only an FAQ will dictate how this interaction will work.

But let's see if we can beat the RLB page record and run around in circular arguments and say the same thing over and over again!

No. The rules dictate how this interaction works. No FAQ needed.

But you are certainly within your rights to ignore them. You're right about one thing. I'm not your TO.

It isn't the TIE Bomber keeping you from attacking ships, it's Valen. Valen doesn't have the heavy keyword. Thus, if you are engaged with him you can not attack a ship.

Sorry, but no. This is the exact same argument used by some in the Instigator debate last year:

"It isn't the TIE Bomber keeping you from attacking ships, it's Instigator's phantom squadrons. The phantom squadrons doen't have the heavy keyword. Thus, if you are engaged with him you can not attack a ship."

The exact same thing. And FFG already ruled against it.

No it's not the exact same thing. These are two real squadrons, not phantom squadrons created by a ship title.

And the rules are clear that if you are engaged by a non-heavy squadron you are unable to attack ships if it is possible to attack a squadron.

You can attack the TIE Bomber squadron, thus you may not attack a ship.

It is exactly the same in that Valen just like the Instigator phantoms is not a valid target. It isn't a question of being real or not. It is a question of being a valid target and he is not. Therefore in this situation he is playing the role of the Instigator phantoms and it was ruled that the ship may be attacked.

Hold up, I just checked the FAQ for Instigator. It looks like no one copy/pasted it into this thread yet.

Squadrons can attack this ship if they are not engaged by an actual enemy squadron without heavy in the play area. The intel keyword does not affect this ship’s ability.

So I'd have to agree with Democratus. Valen causes engagement, and per the FAQ, cannot attack Instigator.

This is a matter of Valen being real and Instigators squad being fake.

Instigators Phantoms are not legal targets, and neither is Valen.

So fire away at the ship!

The TIE Bomber is a legal target.

So no firing at that ship!

So again, I agree vehemently that is how it should work. I argued super hard for exactly that interpretation. You can read of my glorious battles in the thread I linked on page one.

But FFG have already ruled that if the only valid squadron target you have is afflicted by the heavy keyword, no matter how engaged you are then you can shoot the ship. I don't think they made the right call based on my own rules interpretation for exactly the reasons you pointed out, but they made it and thats what it is. I think theres a chance they rule Valen does force you to shoot the bomber tho, because of my pet theory that they made the other call as a balance lever.

Let's revisit FAQ vs Errata again...

An FAQ is a clarification of the rules as written that can be extrapolated to similar situations as applicable.

An Errata is a change to a written rule--whether in the RRG or on some game component--that cannot be extrapolated to other situations based on the original wording because the original RAW is not applicable.

The Instigator ruling was an FAQ.

Not an errata.

Meaning that, for any other identical situation, the ruling can be extrapolated to apply because it is consistent with the way the designer interprets the RAW.

The Instigator FAQ ruling demonstrates that the designer's interpretation of the existing rules is that Heavy in conjunction with an untargetable squadron does not prevent an engaged squadron from attacking a ship. Which is exactly the situation here.

I don't see how the FAQ could be not applicable. Heavy cannot be a mandatory target over ships.

This is a matter of Valen being real and Instigators squad being fake.

Which supports my balance theory. Trying to keep instigator from being broke.

That'd be cool if the faq spelled that out about heavy. But it only talks about phantom squads.