Am I correct to assume that you can use Jundland Terror on your opponent's bantha or Tusken Raiders since it says "choose a"? Could you then move the spaces to displace and damage their units? Then could you attack by using the banthas action or attack? I know the rrg says you cannot target friendly figures, but if that were the case what is the point of taking control of your opponent's creature to attack with ferocity?

The rules do also say somewhere that some abilities allow you to attack with a hostile figure, and for purposes of that attack, the figure can target what would otherwise be friendlies. I forget where exactly.

Might be worth asking FFG is that is the intent of Beast Tamer, however. Personally I find it unlikely they would omit the word "friendly" by accident so I'd rule it a legal use of the card, but I'm sure others will disagree and say the "friendly" is implied, especially since the card is already wordy and there's no room to print "friendly".

EDIT: Actually, I'd say "Stampede" would behave normally, that is if you're moving a hostile figure, it will still only harm *your* troops and not the enemy's troops, since the card says "hostile figure" and the figure's ownership has not changed. It would only be during the attack that Jundland Terror grants that you would be allowed to have it target the enemy's figures, even though they would otherwise be friendly to the bantha.

Am I correct to assume that you can use Jundland Terror on your opponent's bantha or Tusken Raiders since it says "choose a"? Could you then move the spaces to displace and damage their units? Then could you attack by using the banthas action or attack? I know the rrg says you cannot target friendly figures, but if that were the case what is the point of taking control of your opponent's creature to attack with ferocity?

Oh, hell no. Ferocity states implicitly that you can choose one of your opponent's creatures to perform an attack. Jundland Terror does not.

Although.....that would be a VERY INTERESTING ruling that would allow you to use your opponent's Bantha. Could you imagine in the current meta people adding 2 Jundland Terrors to their command decks just in case they encounter a Bantha? The end of Turn 1 would suuuuck.

"Special Situations Regarding Attacks", RRG, Page 6:

Some abilities allow players to perform an attack with a hostile figure. To resolve such an attack, the player resolving the ability controls the hostile figure for the duration of that attack.

-- The player resolving the ability chooses the target of the attack. All figures are considered hostile when choosing a target for this attack. The figure cannot target itself.

-- The player resolving the ability rolls the attack dice and can use any of the figure’s abilities as if the figure were his own.

Oh, that's true, it doesn't say "you may move the figure" or "you may interrupt to perform an attack". It just says the figure gains movement and may attack, and Fizz is correct that the figure's ownership has not been changed, so the opponent would still get to decide how to use those opportunities.

So yes, it's still technically legal to play JT on a hostile Bantha, there's just no reason you'd ever want to.

Sorry, I edited out a bunch of stuff as I collected my thoughts and got the rules reference for attacking with opponent's figures (with Ferocity, for example).

But in the case of Jundland Terror, it does say "the chosen figure gains 2 movement points and may perform and attack or a ╔►" whereas Ferocity calls out specifically that you choose and perform the attack.

I would say one of the following is correct:

A) You cannot play Jundland Terror on your opponent's bantha, because it doesn't explicitly say so like Ferocity does.

B) You can play it, but it gives the figure 2 movement points and lets them attack or special action. Meaning it lets THEM do it, not you.

Even if B is valid, you obviously never want to do that.

I'd go with option B. Possible but pointless