I'm unsure if this query is due to new wording with the latest 1.5.0 release or something I've simply passed over before without over-thinking, but I wanted to check opinion on this activation instruction.

The question relates to the word in bold:

Order: Another Imperial figure with a figure cost of 3 or less attacks << the healthy Rebel closest to this figure >>

Does "this figure" refer to the one doing the attacking, or the Imperial Officer giving the order? I would generally assume it to be the former, but then I thought that the officer is a cowardly type and would want another figure to protect him by ordering that other figure to attack the Rebel closest to him.

As it happened in our game, the only other figure on the board was another officer who did not have line of sight to a Rebel. So we skipped the instruction anyway.

Thanks.

Because it's targeting priority, I'm pretty sure it's closest healthy rebel to the figure performing the attack.

Edit: changed my mind.

I would assume it is the closest to the officer, hence the difference in the specification (demonstrative pronoun):

" Another (Imperial) figure ... this figure".

If it was the same figure intended I would have expect "... that figure" to have been used. The subject (officer) of the order starts by default as "this figure" and switching it mid sentence is just grammatically wrong and semantically bonkers. Unless it was just a lazy and paste from similar orders.

Targeting priority say that if the first target is not valid (i.e. out of line of sight) then the next target that "best satisfies the criteria" is chosen so in this case you would iterate through rebels from the closest to the officer outwards until there's a valid shot and if there is none (as in this case) then the instruction gets ignored.

I can see it either way, but in addition to the grammar minutiae I'd also lean towards having the attack target the figure closest to the officer because it more closely mirrors the way an elite officer's order would work in a standard campaign.

Hmm, targeting priority defaults to the closest rebel figure in case the original target cannot be targeted. There is only an additional "healthy" in the target spec here though. It doesn't make either interpretation more or less valid. Might be closest to the Officer to balance the "Ordering across the map issue".

(Unless there is a tie and you need to decide between "equal" targets, you don't go to the figure who next-best satisfies the criteria when the single target cannot be attacked. You may do that as a house rule though.)

I think the targeting priority is specifically " best satisfies the criteria" as I copied it last night which does extend the rule as actually specified rather than general "closest rebel figure" so it is going to extend out from the first designated target closest to "this" figure. I don't have the book to double check now.

Hmm, this may have changed at some point, you indeed do seem to try the next-best target. However, choosing the next-best won't work with a « named hero » though.

TARGET PRIORITY said:

Most instructions include a figure or object to target, which is enclosed by « » brackets. The target may be specifically named (e.g., Gaarkhan) or chosen by some criteria (e.g. the hero with the highest speed). If two or more targets satisfy the criteria, the Imperial figure chooses the closest of those targets.
Sometimes, the Imperial figure's intended target is not legal. For example, it might be instructed to attack the hero with the most health remaining but does not have line of sight to that hero. In these situations, the figure chooses a legal target that best satisfies the criteria. If no target satisfies the criteria or if no criteria was given, the Imperial figure targets the closest Rebel figure.

Thanks for the input, all. So the general consensus is that "this figure" applies to the original officer issuing the command. I think it makes most thematic (and grammatical) sense.

Useful to revisit the Targeting Priority rules too. I love that all the rules in IA are very clearly explained and documented and don't obstruct the game too much, but it can still be difficult to keep them all in your head when playing irregularly. That, and applying the Imperial Rule when there is no real difference between the options available. Then I tend to choose the option that an Imperial player would likely choose.

The hard part will be learning and remembering the key differences between LotA rules and the regular campaign, which I have yet to play (but at least that will have no app interpretation difficulties). I have no suitable gaming group, only a group of 4-5 others with whom we meet 3-4 times a year.