|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 89
|
I was in a scenario last night where I had a Rodian Brute standing right in front of my opponent's character which was a Sith assault droid, so no accurate shot. The Brute had no cover and was about 5 squares away. I also had Thrawn about 20squares away IN cover. It was my belief that he would have to choose the Brute as the closest legal target. My opponent said he could choose either. Who was right in this, and why?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 871
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
Per the glossary entry for legal target:
"An enemy must be a legal target for an attack, special ability, or Force power. The acting character must have line of sight to it. An enemy with cover is not a legal target unless it is the nearest. If one or more enemies are adjacent to the character, only those enemies are legal targets."
So if it was the opposite distances with the Rodian Brute not in cover 20 squares away and Thrawn in cover 5 squares away, you would be able to attack either. But in the original scenario only the Brute could be targeted.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 89
|
Thank you. That's exactly what I thought.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/20/2010
Posts: 113
|
It was actually the principal behind my vbsl squad, throw out my uggies with no cover and keep my key pieces hidden by diplomat cover meaning the high strike damage pieces or missiles couldn't get near my main pieces giving my five rounds of attack on theory!
|
|
|
Guest |