The new Collateral Damage card reads: "Use after you resolve an attack. Choose a figure or object other than the defender within 2 spaces of the target space. That figure or object suffers 2 dmg".

If your opponent plays On the Lam the target space moves. So does that mean when I play Collateral Damage I can now reach a figure two spaces away from wherever the On the Lam movement ended? If I'm reading it right that's how it should work.

Is the opponent's figure still in line of sight after On the Lam?

Even if the attack resolves (but misses), I have a feeling that if the figure is no longer a valid target, there is no target space.

1 hour ago, a1bert said:

Is the opponent's figure still in line of sight after On the Lam?

Even if the attack resolves (but misses), I have a feeling that if the figure is no longer a valid target, there is no target space.

I understand your point, but I don't think that's how I'd interpret the rules as written. I think what we're trying to interpret is the clarification from the Jabba's Realm rulebook:

" During an attack, if a figure ends its movement such that the

attacker no longer has line of sight to the target, the attack

misses."

My interpretation is that after the target ends its movement, you try to draw line of sight to that figure's space. In that sense, the figure's space is still the "target space" even if you fail to draw line of sight to it. It's not an invalid target, it's just a missed target. Collateral damage can still be used if you miss an attack because of range, I don't see why you couldn't play it after missing because of lost LoS.

If you miss due to insufficient accuracy or a dodge rolled, your original target is still valid, and target space is the space that target occupies.

However, if you miss due to losing line of sight (by the target moving or another figure moving to block line of sight), the target figure is no longer a valid target for an attack. I would say the attack does not have a target then, and thus no target space.

I can ask Clipper and Todd for an opinion.

Here's another relevant bit from the RRG:

If an ability refers to the target space , it is referring to the

space occupied by the defender. If the target is a large figure, it

is referring to the space chosen.

I'd still say that even if the target is no longer a valid target for an attack, it's still "the defender". The attack would still resolve, and miss, but that doesn't mean there's no longer a defender.

(And I use the same rule to argue that no line of sight -> not a valid target -> not target of the attack -> not a defender -> no target space.)

For lols: If a large figure moved out of line of sight during an attack, what would the target space be then?

(Also, if a figure moves out of line of sight before dice are rolled, I'm pretty sure it has been discussed that probably dice are not rolled because there is no defender.)

I think the jump from "not a valid target" to "not target of the attack" is where I disagree. Whether or not it's the target of the attack is determined in step 1 of the attack process, before On the Lam gets played. On the Lam doesn't somehow make the attack not have a target, it just makes the attack miss the target, per my interpretation of the Jabba's Realm rule clarification. That to me is the simplest interpretation of the rule.

Luckily, there aren't any large figure smugglers we have to worry about yet. I don't think there's a satisfactory answer to that hypothetical, even if the figure doesn't move out of LoS.

Step 1 of the attack is declaring target.

Even if the attack misses for any reason, the smuggler in question is still the target, as he/she has been declared as that.

Remember that an attack missing is not the same as an attack not being done.

Has there been any further discussion on this topic? It came up during our regionals.

4 hours ago, seef1033 said:

Has there been any further discussion on this topic? It came up during our regionals.

I submitted a question to FFG when we got back last night and will post their eventual reply.

On 9/8/2017 at 9:52 AM, Willy Jarque said:

Step 1 of the attack is declaring target.

Even if the attack misses for any reason, the smuggler in question is still the target, as he/she has been declared as that.

Remember that an attack missing is not the same as an attack not being done.

That was my first thought too, but a1bert's point of view is also a very good point. This situation is controversial. If I had to play this like a RPG I would allow a "Collateral Damage", thematically I shoot and miss the target, the bullet however can accidentally hit someone else.

We asked the TO. He didn’t allow it to be played, so that’s that without a ruling.

While it doesn't make sense- going by a strict reading of the rules, you should be able to play Collateral Damage.

45 minutes ago, NuSair said:

While it doesn't make sense- going by a strict reading of the rules, you should be able to play Collateral Damage.

Could you walk me through your interpretation of strict reading of the rules? I'm specifically interested in your opinion in which is the target space if there is no longer line of sight to the target: the space the target originally occupied, or the space the figure that is no longer a valid target occupies after moving?

if I'm reading this right i think their interpretation is;

* The target space is the space occupied by the defender.

* Because On the Lam was played, the defender is in a different space, and that space is now the "target space".

* From Jabba's Realm rules, the attack now misses due to lack of LoS (which is not the same as the attack being invalid).

5 minutes ago, Majushi said:

* Because On the Lam was played, the defender is in a different space, and that space is now the "target space".

* The original defender is no longer a valid target for the attack, so is there a target space?

Anyway, when Todd gets the mail, he will produce one of the potential rulings.

19 minutes ago, a1bert said:

* The original defender is no longer a valid target for the attack, so is there a target space?

Anyway, when Todd gets the mail, he will produce one of the potential rulings.

The rule from Jabba's Realm doesn't mention anything about the target becoming invalid.

It specifically calls out a situation where the original target has moved and it then says it's a miss. Not Invalid.

Even if you can no longer see the targeted figure, it's still the defender and it's space is therefore still the targeted space.

But I agree that a clarification is definitely needed.

Is there an precedent for the "target space" being the original space that the defender occupied before using On the Lam and breaking line of sight from the attacker? Don't other abilities reference "target space" like Sentinel on the Royal Guard? So it would be a space on the map that the defender occupies, until the defender leaves that space and then it gets fuzzy.

There are a few other abilities that refer to target space, but I think that’s mostly as a clarification for where the attack is happening on a large or massive figure.

I don’t think it can be ruled to be the original space, as it’s still possible to leave the figure within line of sight. If the figure just moves out of range, My interpretation would be that the target space is the space the defender is occupying when the attack resolved. Hopefully we’ll get a ruling soon.

Consider this example:

* you attack a target 5 spaces away
* you roll an accuracy of 5
* the target figure uses On the Lam to move one space back for a range of 6, but remains in Line of Sight

If the target space didn't move, you'd still only need an accuracy of 5, because you are counting spaces to your target space. The Jabba's realm rules clarification specifies the attack would miss if you ended your movement out of line of sight, but doesn't specify what happens if you end your movement in line of sight. It seems pretty obvious from the RRG definition of target space, that the target space changes and now you need 6 accuracy to hit the target. This also means that collateral damage would be played from the new target space, rather than the original target space. Again I see no evidence in the rules that moving out of Line of Sight by using On the Lam makes the defender no longer the defender, which seems to be the main argument against using the card.

Consider another example.

* you attack a figure
* the figure plays on the lam and moves 2 spaces
* you have line of sight of the target until it enters the 2nd space

As soon as the target uses the first movement point, the target space changes to the new space occupied by the defender. There is no way you can argue that the target space is the original space the figure occupied at this point. When it spends its second movement point you lose line of sight, because you're trying to target that new space it just moved into. Even if you're right that there is no longer a defender for this attack (which I disagree with) there's no reason the target space would be the original space occupied by the defender, it would be the last space occupied by the defender to which you had line of sight.

Some more evidence:

Definition of Miss:

"When an attack misses, the target figure suffers zero [damage]."

The definition of miss presupposes a target figure. If there is no valid target figure, it doesn't make sense to say "the attack misses".

"During an attack, if a figure ends its movement such that the attacker no longer has line of sight to the target , the attack misses ."

(IMHO there was no need to define that the attack continues and misses, because "making action or ability invalid" section in the RRG would've covered that. But we have the rule now.)

Actually, Check Accuracy does not check the distance to the target space but to the target. This is relevant when you target Large figures.

6. Check Accuracy: If performing a ranged attack ( ranged ) the total
Accuracy value must be equal to or greater than the number
of spaces the target is away from the attacker. (See "Counting
Spaces" on page 9). If the total Accuracy value is less than
this number, the attack is a miss.

You need to choose a target space for a Large figure, but the required accuracy is still the distance from the attacker to the target.

So, needing more accuracy to not miss due to insufficient accuracy does not validate or invalidate anything about the target space staying or moving with the original target of the attack.

18 minutes ago, a1bert said:

So, needing more accuracy to not miss due to insufficient accuracy does not validate or invalidate anything about the target space staying or moving with the original target of the attack.

agreed. In the fringe case where the figure moves out of range, but you are able to play a modifier (such as Hera's call the Shots, or command card Dead Eye) to obtain the necessary range for the attack not to miss, Would you say then that the targeted space is the new space the figure occupies?

20 minutes ago, a1bert said:

Check Accuracy does not check the distance to the target space but to the target. This is relevant when you target Large figures.

This is irrelevant when you target small figures, because for small figures the "target space" is defined as the space occupied by the defender or "target", not the space the defender occupied when the attack was declared. The rule for large figures is a special case and is not relevant to the discussion, especially since no large figures can use On the Lam.

26 minutes ago, a1bert said:

needing more accuracy to not miss due to insufficient accuracy does not validate or invalidate anything about the target space staying or moving with the original target of the attack.

Again, since "target space" is defined as the space occupied by the defender, if the defender is in a space 6 spaces away, the target space is 6 spaces away. If the defender moves so that it is 8 spaces away, the target space is now 8 spaces away. The way you're interpreting the rules makes it sound like even though the defender moved, the target hasn't moved. If that is really the case, On the Lam couldn't be played to cause attacks to miss because of accuracy, only to miss due to line of sight.