Instigator + Valen

[Green Knight 9,746]

I think it deserves a FAQ entry, like Instigator did before. It's only fair.

[Undeadguy 5,749]

They really threw a monkey wrench in the rules by creating Instigator.

[Ginkapo 9,321]

They really threw a monkey wrench in the rules by creating Instigator.

Not quite. The issue is Tycho. Without Tycho, Instigator would have been worded so much better

[Undeadguy 5,749]

 

They really threw a monkey wrench in the rules by creating Instigator.

Not quite. The issue is Tycho. Without Tycho, Instigator would have been worded so much better

 

Yea I hadn't considered Tycho.

[Muelmuel 774]

 

Must attack a squadron IF POSSIBLE.

But it's not. So it follows Instigator is a legal target, no?

This is my understanding as well.

In any case, by the time an email/FAQ comes out, one of the two will be a valid target. I can't imagine they would allow a loop that disallows squadron attacks altogether in this manner.

My prediction is that Rudor gets the protection.

 

even if ffg does indeed intend for instigator and valen to negate squadron attacks altogether, it does not makes them unbeatable. Consider that the only place where your squadrons would be helpless against them is when both their area of effects overlap, which is not very big. It would require very precise and skillful maneuvering on the part of the instigator+valen player to fly in and trap all enemy squadrons with this combo. By then one should be able to see it coming and "take evasive action!"

you can still escape and maneuver out of the overlap with nearby intel, which you should have.

And don't forget any ships nearby who can rekt them combo with AS and AA fire.

 

Don't let the OP feel of this combo make you feel bias against the possibility that this is legal.  

But I agree an email will help clear things up

Edited October 28, 2016 by Muelmuel

[DerErlkoenig 975]

Must attack a squadron IF POSSIBLE.

But it's not. So it follows Instigator is a legal target, no?

This is my understanding as well.

In any case, by the time an email/FAQ comes out, one of the two will be a valid target. I can't imagine they would allow a loop that disallows squadron attacks altogether in this manner.

My prediction is that Rudor gets the protection.

even if ffg does indeed intend for instigator and valen to negate squadron attacks altogether, it does not makes them unbeatable. Consider that the only place where your squadrons would be helpless against them is when both their area of effects overlap, which is not very big. It would require very precise and skillful maneuvering on the part of the instigator+valen player to fly in and trap all enemy squadrons with this combo. By then one should be able to see it coming and "take evasive action!"

you can still escape and maneuver out of the overlap with nearby intel, which you should have.

And don't forget any ships nearby who can rekt them combo with AS and AA fire.

 

Don't let the OP feel of this combo make you feel bias against the possibility that this is legal.  

But I agree an email will help clear things up

Intel won't let you move away from Instigator, actually.

Of course it's not impossible to beat, but I highly doubt they would rule it that both units make each other invincible to engaged squadrons.

And the setup wouldn't be all that hard.

But really all I'm doing is making a prediction. One of them will be targetable, probably. I could be wrong, it's happened before, but I don't think I am this time.

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

Guys. It is explicitly not possible per the current RAW, AND FAQ precedent, for neither to be attackable. Once again,

When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged

squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship.

Not possible to attack Valen? No problem, shoot Instigator. Done.

The only question is which one protects the other?

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Come on, Ard.  You've fallen into the Dras Trap.

 

Where your argument is completely true, but sadly involves the invocation of common sense....  

 

I'm in there all the dang time....

[Undeadguy 5,749]

Instigator protects Valen because a squad that moves into range is engaged by 3 squadrons. 1 is Valen, 2 from Instigator. Since the squad is "treated as engaged by 2 additional squadrons" Valen cannot be shot at due to the "Cannot" golden rule. Per engagement rule, when you try to attack, you cannot shoot Valen, and now the "if possible" takes precedence, so you can shoot Instigator. 

[DerErlkoenig 975]

Instigator protects Valen because a squad that moves into range is engaged by 3 squadrons. 1 is Valen, 2 from Instigator. Since the squad is "treated as engaged by 2 additional squadrons" Valen cannot be shot at due to the "Cannot" golden rule. Per engagement rule, when you try to attack, you cannot shoot Valen, and now the "if possible" takes precedence, so you can shoot Instigator.

The cannot is total, if it applies. The issue is whether or not it applies in this particular case. I lean towards yes, but am only like 55% sure. They really could go either way.

[Undeadguy 5,749]

Why wouldn't it work? Cannot is an absolute effect and can't be ignored.

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

Why wouldn't it work? Cannot is an absolute effect and can't be ignored.

Ugh... I'm having PTSD flashbacks to the Great AP/XI7 Fiasco.

This is not about whether"cannot is absolute.

It is about whether it applies. Which is not entirely clear.

I think we're in agreement that it probably does, but if it doesn't apply, it doesn't matter if"cannot" is absolute.

[DerErlkoenig 975]

Thanks, Ard. I fell asleep with that response half typed because I got stuck looking for a witch wiring of Caleb's card, lol. I also got real sick of people ignoring the card wording interaction to focus on the word cannot, when that wasn't ever the issue with XI7/AP.

Undead, it's whether or not Instigator qualifies to trigger his ability. If it does, then that's when cannot becomes relevant. If it doesn't, then it doesn't get around cannot, the ability itself just doesn't apply.

[Green Knight 9,746]

 

Why wouldn't it work? Cannot is an absolute effect and can't be ignored.

Ugh... I'm having PTSD flashbacks to the Great AP/XI7 Fiasco.

This is not about whether"cannot is absolute.

It is about whether it applies. Which is not entirely clear.

I think we're in agreement that it probably does, but if it doesn't apply, it doesn't matter if"cannot" is absolute.

 

 

Is there anything to suggest Instigator squadrons would not apply to Mr. ******?

 

Just wondering. As worded it seems pretty clear.

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

Is there anything to suggest Instigator squadrons would not apply to Mr. ******?

 

Just wondering. As worded it seems pretty clear.

 

Not specifically, no, which is why I'm pretty sure Valen is protected. 

 

Only reason I bring it up is that Instigator's engagement is functionally somewhat modified from any other engagement, in that it doesn't restrict targeting, can't be affected by Intel, etc.  Which, while consistent with RAW, does leave it open to potential ambiguity about applying it in unique situations like this. 

Mostly, because Valen being protected would make this the only scenario in which Instigator's engagement triggers a restriction on targeting anything, it took me a bit by surprise and I wanted to see what others thought.

But the more I look at it, yes, the more sure I am that it pretty clearly does prevent attacks on Valen unless specifically clarified not to do so.

[Green Knight 9,746]

That's my thinking too. If they want him not protected they need to faq it. Otherwise he's protected.