Yes.

Think of Telekinetic Combat as a fusion of Melee Reach and Lightsaber Throw. When Traya makes an attack on her own turn, all enemies within 6 squares are considered legal targets (like Melee Reach) and any attacks made against characters not physically adjacent become non-melee (similar to Lightsaber Throw).

i think she would have to attack the adjacent character because at that point that is the only legal target

Well, the wording for TC says that they MAY attack targets 6 squares away. I don't think this allows Traya to attack someone 6 squares away if there's someone adjacent to her. She still must obey targetting rules. But as mentioned before, we will await the ruling from Sithborg.

Sincerely,
Jester007

The thing is, it doesn't say that it ignores cover or adjacency. When things are ignored, it tends to state it. Much like other abilities, ALL the rules must be obeyed.

So, Telekinetic Combat follows all normal targetting rules as normal, as it does not say it ignores any of them.

Just curious, does anyone know where there's glossary source for R&R that gives the expanded definitions?

Sincerely,
Jester007

If there is a character adjacent, non adjacent figures cannot be legal targets. Cover and adjacency apply as normal.

The part that mentions the character w/ TC being able to attack non-adjacent enemies (even if this character can only attack non-adjacent enemies) does not get around targetting rules. In the basic rule book, it states that if a character is based by an enemy, that character cannot target any other enemies that aren't adjacent.

Let's look at LS Throw 3/5. That power allows a character to be able to target any enemy within LOS. But if there is an enemy adjacent to the character using LS Throw, then you cannot target anyone but the adjacent enemy. Even though the power basically states you can target anyone within LOS, it still does not get around certain targetting restrictions (adjacency being one of them).

Think of using TC against non-adjacent targets as kind of LS Throw but without it being a power. The second sentence is there to let everyone know that even though Traya has Melee attack, she can still attack someone 6 squares away. Otherwise, you would have to create a SA to allow her to make ranged attacks that would replace her normal attacks (I would like to reference GGDAC's Blaster 20).

Sincerely,
Jester007

I understand how Telekinetic Combat is interpreted: the acting character can make non-melee attacks against characters within 6 squares, subject to normal targeting rules. (Or normal melee attacks against adjacent enemies.) I agree that it should work that way.

However, I agree with Dimetrodon. The glossary doesn't match what the interpretation is. (The card's wording matches the interpretation, though, so it's only confusing if you look into the glossary.)

The glossary for Telekinetic Combat says that enemies within 6 are treated as legal targets. Step I of Resolving Effects is "declare all legal targets" and step II is to "declare a target" out of the legal targets. The glossary definition of "legal target" contains the targeting rules, so if a special ability declares something to be in the "legal target" category it effectively sidesteps the normal targeting rules and is added to the list of legal targets (used in Step I).

This is different from the wording on the glossary definition of Accurate Shot, which does not mention "legal target". Accurate Shot says a shooter "can attack an enemy with cover even if it's not the nearest enemy", but it does not affect the other parts of the definition of legal target (i.e. adjacent characters first).

I understand the argument that you have to follow the targeting rules unless otherwise stated, but the targeting rules are used to determine what the "legal targets" are. So saying something is a legal target is saying you skip over the targeting rules. If you still have to follow targeting rules anyway, it should say "can attack" or "may target" or "might be a legal target".

In any case, the answer to this question should be added to the FAQ.

===

(As far as I can tell, there is no other glossary entry or ability that flatly states something is a "legal target". Accurate Shot, Sniper, LS Throw 3/5, etc. all get around specific named parts of the targeting rules such as ignoring cover. They do not directly put characters in the "legal target" category.)

I'm in agreeance with Flying Arrow...

Special abilities and Force powers ignore/alter rules all the time.

Saying a character is treated "as a legal target" says to follow the targeting rules and then also add that character to the "legal targets" list (if they weren't there already). It's the same wording as for Light Spirit but in reverse: "not a legal target". If attacking and there is a character with Light Spirit nearby without cover, you follow normal targeting rules and the Light Spirit character would in the "legal targets" list. Then based on Light Spirit's definition, that character is removed from the "legal targets" category.

I agree - I think it was likely overlooked. It should have said "can attack" instead of treating an enemy within 6 as a "legal target". Or, as Dimetrodon indicated, the sentence could have been omitted entirely. It works as intended based on the ruling, and I think the ruling is a good ruling. The ruling just doesn't match the glossary text. I guess sometimes judicial activism is a good thing. :-)