Squadrons: Heavy, Intel and engaged

[Tvayumat 3,637]

Hey I just want to apologize for bringing this rolling firefight into this thread. My comment was flippant and intended to be humorous but instead we just have the same BS packaged up, moved over, and reheated in a new place. Sorry, guys .

Well, you asked the question. We're just trying to answer it.

How many pages CAN we fill?

[DerErlkoenig 975]

For the record, Lyr, you're misquoting the new FAQ.

 

What it says is:

 

  Squadrons can attack this ship if they are not engaged by an actual enemy squadron in the play area.

 

What it does not say is:

 

  Squadrons cannot attack this ship if they are engaged by an actual enemy squadron in the play area.

 

And it certainly doesn't say:

 

  Squadrons cannot attack this ship if they are engaged by an actual enemy squadron in the play area, even if that squadron would not normally prevent attacks against a ship.

What's the difference between the actual wording get you used and the middle one? They mean the same thing to me.

You can[/url] not choose to attack the ship if engaged with an actual squadron.

That is what it is saying.

That's always the rule.

Oh wait, except for in the case of Heavy, the specific keyword we're discussing.

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

"If not A then B" is not the same as, and does not necessarily imply, "if A then not B".

[Forgottenlore 9,838]

They've already errata'd Instigator once to confirm that his imaginary squadrons don't prevent you from targeting him,

No, they didn't. They didn't errata it at all. The entry is not in the errata section of the FAQ, it is in the clarification section. They added a clarification saying that a squadron could target the instigator if there were no othe legal squadron targets.

Can you come up with ANY other situation where heavy has an effect if not all of the of the squadrons engaged with you have it?

Edited December 29, 2015 by Forgottenlore

[Snipafist 7,541]

 

Hey I just want to apologize for bringing this rolling firefight into this thread. My comment was flippant and intended to be humorous but instead we just have the same BS packaged up, moved over, and reheated in a new place. Sorry, guys .

Well, you asked the question. We're just trying to answer it.

How many pages CAN we fill?

At this point I believe we have hit 11 total pages and climbing.

[Tvayumat 3,637]

 

They've already errata'd Instigator once to confirm that his imaginary squadrons don't prevent you from targeting him,

No, they didn't. They didn't errata it at all. The entry is not in the errata section of the FAQ, it is in the clarification section. They added a clarification saying that a squadron could target the instigator if there were no othe legal squadron targets.

 

Pardon my slip of phrasing.

 

 

 

Can you come up with ANY other situation where heavy has an effect if not all of the of the squadrons engaged with you have it?

 

Nobody is arguing with your presented example.

The difference here is that those non-heavy squadrons you mention *actually exist as valid targets*.

Are Heavy squadrons "valid targets" for the purpose of making an anti-squadron attack? Sure. They also can't prevent you from making an anti-ship attack, and if there is no squadron preventing you from firing at a ship, Instigator can't prevent it by itself, as mentioned in the clarification. (Which, admittedly, could afford to be a smidge more clear itself.)

EDIT:

One more time, let ME be clear here; I am NOT saying that your interpretation of this rule interaction is strictly and definitively *wrong*. I'm saying that the ultimate intent of the interaction is *patently unclear*, and arguing in support of the position that seems to me to A.) Make the most sense and B.) Be most rationally balanced vs the Title's pt value.

I don't even play Rebels, so it doesn't benefit me in any way to make Instigator less powerful, I just look at this version of the interpretation and think "Wow, that's hilariously overpowered compared to Impetuous, why would I ever run a ship without it?" And, if you turn out to be right, you can bet that Instigator will find its way into my fleets a lot more often than it presently does, because Intel is pretty **** huge.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Tvayumat

[Churry 40]

As the OP of this thread:

 

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

We still have a long way to go before we beat the SSD thread. And that's not even the longest thread on these forums anymore.

[Tvayumat 3,637]

Seriously though, I'll stop ranting until we know for sure. My bad, OP.

 

[Forgottenlore 9,838]

We still have a long way to go before we beat the SSD thread. And that's not even the longest thread on these forums anymore.

Well, a couple threads over on the x-wing section of the forums are up to around 120 pages. I think they are the longest threads on the whole forum.

[Tvayumat 3,637]

 

We still have a long way to go before we beat the SSD thread. And that's not even the longest thread on these forums anymore.

Well, a couple threads over on the x-wing section of the forums are up to around 120 pages. I think they are the longest threads on the whole forum.

 

Give us a few years. We'll get there by Wave 8.

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

 

We still have a long way to go before we beat the SSD thread. And that's not even the longest thread on these forums anymore.

Well, a couple threads over on the x-wing section of the forums are up to around 120 pages. I think they are the longest threads on the whole forum.

 

 

X-Wing players. We don't need that scum.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

X-Wing players. We don't need that scum.

 

 

"Yessir."

[Lyraeus 4,759]

We still have a long way to go before we beat the SSD thread. And that's not even the longest thread on these forums anymore.

Well, a couple threads over on the x-wing section of the forums are up to around 120 pages. I think they are the longest threads on the whole forum.

 

X-Wing players. We don't need that scum.

We agree on something!

Oh no. . . Now this will turn into what has been happening with DerErlkoenig and I. . . Nooooo