Instigator question

[SmogLord 94]

Well, my thought was always that Instigator was a special case. It's a ship specifically designed to be anti-squadron, so to me it makes sense that it plays differently than other ships in regards to squadrons. Now, whether the title is broken or not is another matter. 4 points does seem under costed. But is it really any worse than Demolisher or Rhymer?

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

Well, my thought was always that Instigator was a special case. It's a ship specifically designed to be anti-squadron, so to me it makes sense that it plays differently than other ships in regards to squadrons. Now, whether the title is broken or not is another matter. 4 points does seem under costed. But is it really any worse than Demolisher or Rhymer?

No. Both of which, you may notice, are dramatically overrepresented. So now the Imperials have three undercosted cards with major balance implications. Fantastic.

[reegsk 742]

But hey, you Rebels have. . .ummmm. . .y'know that upgrade that only Rebels can take that everyone says is OP? You all know the one I mean, right? The thing. The thing that all Rebel commanders take because it always works?

 

Demolisher?

[SmogLord 94]

Well, my thought was always that Instigator was a special case. It's a ship specifically designed to be anti-squadron, so to me it makes sense that it plays differently than other ships in regards to squadrons. Now, whether the title is broken or not is another matter. 4 points does seem under costed. But is it really any worse than Demolisher or Rhymer?

No. Both of which, you may notice, are dramatically overrepresented. So now the Imperials have three undercosted cards with major balance implications. Fantastic.

I agree this is a legitimate concern.

[clontroper5 4,233]

Well, my thought was always that Instigator was a special case. It's a ship specifically designed to be anti-squadron, so to me it makes sense that it plays differently than other ships in regards to squadrons. Now, whether the title is broken or not is another matter. 4 points does seem under costed. But is it really any worse than Demolisher or Rhymer?

No. Both of which, you may notice, are dramatically overrepresented. So now the Imperials have three undercosted cards with major balance implications. Fantastic.

until you know, shoot instigator...

It's not like you are often in range of Both instigator and another ship anyway. (Anecdotal argument time) I have NEVER once had the issue arise in One of my many games with instigator (easily over 30 games, at least 15 tournament games)

[Drasnighta 26,832]

 

 

Well, my thought was always that Instigator was a special case. It's a ship specifically designed to be anti-squadron, so to me it makes sense that it plays differently than other ships in regards to squadrons. Now, whether the title is broken or not is another matter. 4 points does seem under costed. But is it really any worse than Demolisher or Rhymer?

No. Both of which, you may notice, are dramatically overrepresented. So now the Imperials have three undercosted cards with major balance implications. Fantastic.

until you know, shoot instigator...

It's not like you are often in range of Both instigator and another ship anyway. (Anecdotal argument time) I have NEVER once had the issue arise in One of my many games with instigator (easily over 30 games, at least 15 tournament games)

 

 

Of course, its much more likely to happen if you have Major Rhymer.

 

 

Additionally.  We now have 2 Answers from 2 Different People.

 

We'll have to wait until something more solid is in the FAQ, I guess... 

Edited June 17, 2016 by Drasnighta

[Green Knight 9,746]

Haha, so that time when this came up and we did it wrong...we did it RIGHT. This gives weight to that old adage: GK is always right, even when he's wrong!

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Who is more Right?  A Games Producer or a Games Designer?  

[clontroper5 4,233]

Who is more Right?  A Games Producer or a Games Designer?  

a games CEO

[Drasnighta 26,832]

 

Who is more Right?  A Games Producer or a Games Designer?  

a games CEO

 

 

::clap::

A Perfectly Correct Answer that is Totally Bloody Useless...  Rules Lawyer Award for the Day

[Lyraeus 4,759]

Hmmmm what happen to the other one I wonder. . .  

[SmogLord 94]

Well, I'm wrong again. Here is a second email I received today:

As a correction to the response I sent you earlier today, I have been reminded of an earlier ruling by James Kniffen about the Instigator title. I have copied the full text below, but that response was also posted online here.

Squadrons can attack ships despite the presence of the Instigator. Since it isn’t possible for those squadrons to attack the two illusory squadrons that are engaging them, they can attack the Instigator or another ship.

James’ ruling stands. We will clarify the FAQ entry for Instigator when we next update.

Sorry for any confusion this has caused!

Michael Gernes

Game Producer

mgernes@fantasyflightgames.com

[Drasnighta 26,832]

...  Clarification is nice.  

One way or another.  I don't care which way.  Just...  Just SO GLAD its consistent....   Even if it is after-the-fact.

[SmogLord 94]

Agreed.

[reegsk 742]

Alright, so Instigator still lets Rhymer and Friends take potshots at your Demo.

 

Unless you place Instigator to Obstruct Demo. . .*twirls mustache*

[CaribbeanNinja 6,207]

Who is more Right?  A Games Producer or a Games Designer?  

Apparently a Games Designer, huh?

[Frimmel 2,593]

 

...  Clarification is nice.  

One way or another.  I don't care which way.  Just...  Just SO GLAD its consistent....   Even if it is after-the-fact.

 

Hopefully Mr. Gernes learned his lesson to use the forum search tool before providing answers.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

I will add - With utmost respect to Mr. Gernes - to acknowledge when you have been incorrect and state so in a very timely manner...  More people should do it.

I applaud it.

 

I try to live by it.

[SmogLord 94]

I had sent in my question via email before Dras found the original answer from James and posted it on this thread. Once he posted it I accepted it, until I got that first email yesterday. Then I wasn't sure if they had changed their minds or just weren't on the same page. Glad to know the final answer now. And like Dras said, Michael corrected his mistake very quickly, same day, and also apologized for the confusion. So I certainly have no complaints.

[Cusm 466]

Sorry for the resurrection, I am being a little thick on this title or the purpose of it after the FAQ. So this basically will prevent a squad from moving if it is range of the Instigator and it interferes with squads with the Grit keyword, is this the only thing it actually does now?

[Democratus 1,698]

That's exactly what it does. It keeps squads (even those with Grit or Intel) from moving away if they are in range 1 of the ship.

[ovinomanc3r 4,437]

Instigator is not engage and the squadron are not engage by instigator even when the title is what is causing engagement. The squadrons are engage with two squadrons so apply the engagement rules that say something close to:

If a squadron is engaged it must attack a squadron if possible rather than a ship.

No possible to attack squadrons so the bombers can attack a ship. What ship? Whatever in range. The raider doesn't change this in any way. In fact when you are engaged you don't have to shoot engaged squadron. You can attack other squadrons even when they are not engaged with you. Why the raider would change this when you are not engaged with it?

[ovinomanc3r 4,437]

1 hour ago, Cusm said:

Sorry for the resurrection, I am being a little thick on this title or the purpose of it after the FAQ. So this basically will prevent a squad from moving if it is range of the Instigator and it interferes with squads with the Grit keyword, is this the only thing it actually does now?

- It does swarm works with just 1 tie fighter too.

- It does Rudor untouchable.

- It does enemy intel useless 

- It not only prevent a squadron from moving, it keep them near to be "flechetted" by Kallus and killed ruthlessfully by some strategist.