Instigator clarification needed

[Duskwalker 607]

So the way it sounds enemy squadron at range 1 to the Instigator basically become useless. They can't move, they can't attack, since squadrons can't shoot at ships if they are engaged, they can only wait for the Instigator to explode/move on (seems kinda broken, considering how marginalized squadrons are in the game as it is, but that's beside the point). But then FFG recommends combining it whit Quad Lasers. Why? If I understand it right it could never trigger because squadrons could never attack the Instigator (except with Rhymer shenanigans). And why do they count as engaged by specifically two squadrons?

Am I missing something? I'm really confused here. 

Edited September 19, 2015 by Duskwalker

[Green Knight 9,746]

From the Engagement rule:

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

 

As there is no actual squadron present, they are free to shoot at ships (but not move)

 

So, just blow up the Instigator and problem solved!

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

It doesn't even need to target Instigator - it could target any ship. So you can't use Instigator to prevent bombers from shooting at, say, your ISD. It's mostly useful to pin down enemy fighters and free up your own bombers to do their thing.

[Alpha17 2,853]

It's main use to me is to ensure that no matter what speed your Raider is moving, you can pin down the fighters for at least a turn, long enough for you to attack them, probably to throw a few counters there way too if you use Quad Lasers. 

[Duskwalker 607]

 

From the Engagement rule:

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

 

As there is no actual squadron present, they are free to shoot at ships (but not move)

 

So, just blow up the Instigator and problem solved!

 

 

Ah, thank. 

[Bipolar Potter 679]

Current forum speculation consensus is the "by two additional squadrons" probably has something to do with the Rogue keyword, but we won't find that out till we get the preview for the RaV pack.

[Wildhorn 453]

 

From the Engagement rule:

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

 

As there is no actual squadron present, they are free to shoot at ships (but not move)

 

So, just blow up the Instigator and problem solved!

 

It all depends of how you read it.

You could read it that you must attack squadron (if such action is possible) rather than an enemy ship.

Which would means you can't attack ships no matter what, as long as you are engaged.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

 

 

From the Engagement rule:

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

 

As there is no actual squadron present, they are free to shoot at ships (but not move)

 

So, just blow up the Instigator and problem solved!

 

It all depends of how you read it.

You could read it that you must attack squadron (if such action is possible) rather than an enemy ship.

Which would means you can't attack ships no matter what, as long as you are engaged.

 

 

Then you're ignoring the if possible then.

 

How can you attack something that doesn't exist?

[Wildhorn 453]

 

 

 

From the Engagement rule:

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

 

As there is no actual squadron present, they are free to shoot at ships (but not move)

 

So, just blow up the Instigator and problem solved!

 

It all depends of how you read it.

You could read it that you must attack squadron (if such action is possible) rather than an enemy ship.

Which would means you can't attack ships no matter what, as long as you are engaged.

 

 

Then you're ignoring the if possible then.

 

How can you attack something that doesn't exist?

 

 

No you are not ignoring it. The "if possible" means if it is possible to attack a squadron you must, but if it is not possible, you do not attack a squadron, but it doesnt imply that you can attack a ship.

 

I am pretty sure what I just wrote is not clear (not easy when you try to explain something not in your main language).

Lets say there is a new squadron that get released that says "Can't be attacked by a squadron unless it is engaged by 3 or more squadrons".

Now, you engage it with only 1 squadron. The "it must attack an engaged squadron if possible" apply here. You must attack a squadron, but that squadron doesnt allow you to attack it. But you are still engaged and should not be able to attack a ship.

This is the case with Instigator title too. You are engaged, you can't attack squadron, but you are still engaged and by this way, can't attack a ship.

I hope this is more clear this way.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Wildhorn

[Green Knight 9,746]

Not buying that. Someone send ffg an email

[Wildhorn 453]

Not buying that. Someone send ffg an email

 

I did, waiting for an answer.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

 

 

 

 

From the Engagement rule:

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

 

As there is no actual squadron present, they are free to shoot at ships (but not move)

 

So, just blow up the Instigator and problem solved!

 

It all depends of how you read it.

You could read it that you must attack squadron (if such action is possible) rather than an enemy ship.

Which would means you can't attack ships no matter what, as long as you are engaged.

 

 

Then you're ignoring the if possible then.

 

How can you attack something that doesn't exist?

 

 

No you are not ignoring it. The "if possible" means if it is possible to attack a squadron you must, but if it is not possible, you do not attack a squadron, but it doesnt imply that you can attack a ship.

 

I am pretty sure what I just wrote is not clear (not easy when you try to explain something not in your main language).

Lets say there is a new squadron that get released that says "Can't be attacked by a squadron unless it is engaged by 3 or more squadrons".

Now, you engage it with only 1 squadron. The "it must attack an engaged squadron if possible" apply here. You must attack a squadron, but that squadron doesnt allow you to attack it. But you are still engaged and should not be able to attack a ship.

This is the case with Instigator title too. You are engaged, you can't attack squadron, but you are still engaged and by this way, can't attack a ship.

I hope this is more clear this way.

 

 

You're muddying the waters further, by bringing in the hypothetical with another rule we havn't seen yet.  

 

 

 

It does imply that you can attack a ship, by not forbidding you to attack a ship.

As I see it:

 

Must attack a Squadron if Possible.

It is not possible to attack a Squadron.  

 

Therefore, I can attack a ship.

 

...

I am going to attack.

 - I want to attack a Ship.

 - I am Engaged.

 - I must attack a Squadron if Possible.

 - I cannot attack a Squadron (you cannot declare an attack that does not exist - can you?  I fear we're getting into "The Rules don't say you can't here" - but its very hard to measure range for an attack that does not exist.)

 - I will attack a ship.

 

...

 

The rule does not say "If you are engaged, you must attack Squadrons and CANNOT attack Ships."

 

That is important word difference there, because the rules book also tells us that if an upgrade card says the word cannot, then that cannot is absolute.

 

I am sure if it was intended taht way, the upgrade card would say it that way.

[Bipolar Potter 679]

Is there currently a way to be engaged and not  be able to attack the squadron engaging you? I can't think of a way. There's ways to be able to attack a squadron with another squadron, and not be engaged, but currently no way to be engaged and not be able to attack.

Since that's true, the rule on page 6 makes no sense at all, unless its worded that exact way just for a title like this. Otherwise, the rule on pg 6 would say: "When squadrons attack, engaged squadrons cannot attack ships." Then Instigator would have to read: Enemy squadrons at D1 are treated as if they are engaged by 2 additional squadrons, even if they are not currently engaged, and they can attack this ship/ships.

And again, as far as ghost squadrons, the card doesn't say, "Enemy squadrons at D1 are engaged by 2 additional squadrons, ..." Which is the only way you could say that there's some weird pseudo squadrons intangibly floating around, unable to be shot at due to their Stygium Cloaking Fields(TIE Phantoms confirmed you guys). This is literally the only way the rules would support not being able to attack the ship.


 

[ScottieATF 2,867]

To believe that you can't Attack Ships with Squadrons engaged by the Instigator you must assume that FFG did not phrase thier rules in a purposeful matter on the subject.

If the rules were meant to mean that you simply cannot attack Ships when engaged then they would simply say so. But they don't say so, they are worded specifically otherwise.

At the core of it you can't assume the rules are written haphazardly.

[stuuk 48]

Was there any clarification ?

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

Yes, Instigator doesn't prevent attacks.

FAQ pg 7 INSTIGATOR:

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.

Edit: oh, also, this:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/207199-instigator-question/?p=2239572

Edited September 5, 2016 by Ardaedhel