4 hours ago, Turan said:

I don't see how the new bullet point in the Attack article has any bearing on this. For one thing, it isn't necessarily true that you must shoot Han with anything, unless he's the only trooper unit target that hasn't already activated this turn.

Presuming that's true, the AT-ST is not able to target Han with the mortar, so it targets another trooper unit that hasn't activated, or if there are none it targets normally. How did adding the text that both the main cannon and mortar are treated as an attack affect that situation at all?

Well, the Reckless Diversion text reads "When an enemy unit performs an attack, it must attack a trooper unit with a face up order token, if able."

Without the clarification that separate attack pools are separate attacks, one could have conceivably argued that the AT-ST must attack Han (or the other trooper unit) with its main gun, and the mortar dice are simply wasted, since they are part of the same attack but out of range and therefore ineligible to contribute to the attack. The attack text makes clear that you can only include the dice of weapons in an attack that are within range of the target:

"Choose Weapons: The attacker can choose one weapon from each eligible mini to contribute to the attack pool. To choose a weapon, the attacker must meet all requirements indicated by that weapon’s keywords, and that weapon’s range must include the range of the attack, as determined from the attacker’s unit leader to the closest mini of the defender." (pg. 14)

It's just a clarification to emphasize you can still fire the mortar at something else instead of wasting the dice.

I'm going to just discontinue the exchange, because I feel I have you responding to things while you're tired or something...there are chunks of that last post that badly don't make sense Any reply on my part would sound like sniping, which is not my intent. We're also talking about different parts of the new RRG, apparently. Doesn't matter at this point anyway.

9 hours ago, Turan said:

I'm going to just discontinue the exchange, because I feel I have you responding to things while you're tired or something...there are chunks of that last post that badly don't make sense Any reply on my part would sound like sniping, which is not my intent. We're also talking about different parts of the new RRG, apparently. Doesn't matter at this point anyway.

What doesn’t make sense?

This whole discussion is purely academic, in any case, as they explicitly clarified that suppression applies before standby, which is what caused this hubbub in the first place.

The underlying purpose in adding the new language to clarify that attack pools are separate attacks is entirely irrelevant to that ruling.