Galloping Attack - As this character moves, it can attack each adjacent enemy; it gets a +4 bonus to Attack when doing so. It must move at least 1 square before making an attack. Roll each attack when this character is adjacent to that enemy. This character cannot attack any enemy twice when using Galloping Attack, and it cannot move into a space it has just left. It still provokes attacks of opportunity as it moves. The character can still make a normal attack on the turn it moves, as long as it moves its speed or less.

Strafe Attack - Some characters with Flight also have Strafe Attack. This character can move up to double speed and attack each enemy whose space it enters instead of using the targeting rules. Roll each attack just before this character enters that enemy’s space. This character cannot attack any enemy twice in the same turn using Strafe Attack, and it cannot move directly back into a space it has just left. A character with Strafe Attack can still make a normal attack on the turn it moves, as long as it moves its speed or less. Prior to using Strafe Attack, this character must designate a legal space to end its move in. Other characters cannot enter this space while this character is using Strafe Attack.


Sorry to resurrect a locked thread, but I don't get it. I mean, I understand the difference between the two based on the other rules threads. Strafe has to attack everyone. Gallop you get to choose.

But I don't understand how the words in bold lead to the interpretation "must attack everyone" while the omission of the words lead to the interpretation "may choose whether or not to attack".

Right. I got that. I understand the ruling and I see what the wording is, but I don't see how they go together. Here's how I would read it. Tell me where I go wrong.

I understand that the word "can" is being applied to the entire ability in Strafe, and that attacks using Strafe bypass targeting rules if for some reason there's a character that can be attacked but can't be targeted.

I don't see how the wording on Gallop gets to a different interpretation. The correct ruling for Gallop is "For each adjacent enemy, this character has the option to attack that enemy." (Option invoked multiple times.) The incorrect (strafe-like) ruling would be "This character has the option to attack each adjacent enemy." (Option invoked one time.)

The latter is the wording used in Galloping Attack, and the reason given that the galloping character does not have to attack everyone is that it uses the targeting rules. So each attack does have to happen but is aborted during targeting. (?)

From the rulebook, the only thing I see about targeting on an attack says, "Before making an attack, choose which enemy the attacking character (attacker) is targeting." Then it describes how to determine the legal targets are. I don't see where it says that during targeting you can decide to target no one.



I'm not trying to be a nuisance here - I'm just trying to understand how I should have reached the correct ruling on my own, based on the wording of the abilities and the rulebook.

You can't interpret "can" that way in the rules. It's generally interpreted as "has the ability to" rather than "may or may not".

For example: You can hear sounds with your ears.

That doesn't mean you can turn your ears off.

But that's beside the point.

The option on targeted attacks and non-optional non-targeted attacks goes back to the very earliest days of the game, and comes out of several interpretations that might not be so obvious years later. Even the FAQ is really vague on this topic, though the languishing WotC rules forum covered it all well for long-term players.

The core of targeted attacks is the choice part in choosing your target. Although you think it doesn't imply the choice to not target, it always has been interpreted otherwise going right back to the original set. If you have Triple Attack are you forced to make all 3? No. If you have Rolling Cleave do you have to make the attack? No. (One of the few places it's explicit in the FAQ.)

The core of non-targeted attacks being manditory goes back to AOOs and Lightsaber Sweep/Strafe Attack in the original set. If attacks are generally optional, why is AOOs explicit about it being optional? It was determined that it wasn't just restating the obvious. It was determined that if that wording were not there in the rulebook you would have to make the non-targeted attack because non-targeted attacks "just happen" when they meet the state of being generated, much like non-optional abilities. A B and C occur and--wham--roll attack. Since Sweep/Strafe didn't have that extra wording, and were also non-targeted attacks, they became manditory.

Reviewing the FAQ, I can see how this isn't crystal clear for someone who joined later. I can find some old official rulings and add them to the FAQ with my typical notation about where they came from.

Thank you Nickname for shining that kind of light on it.
Ive been playing since CloneStrike (Good times), and it seemed so much easier then, then it does now, or since Bounty Hunters anyways, but thats just my opinion.
Where would a good place be for me to go to get a complete rules listing and all possible erratas? Bloomilk has pretty much everything, but in order for me to teach new Gamers to play, I think it would be best if I had a better list of breakdowns and such. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Awesome! Thank you yet again.