Let's say that during the Reckless Diversion turn:

1.The only trooper unit with a face up order token that the opponent can see is a R2-D2 with a suppression token.

2. C-3PO used distract on an enemy unit but that same unit can also see a trooper unit with a face up order token.

Who can or cannot be attacked and why?

My guesses would be:

1. this Can be difficult to pull off against an entire army, but is also the most perfect use of Reckless Diversion. Requires positioning and timing I.e. a skilled play to max protect your other troops

2. Reckless Diversion would overrule distract and the unit with the face up order token would be the only eligible target.

Again, just my guesses. I’m curious to hear the official dissection of the rules.

1) the key part in Reckless Diversion is the last: "if able". You cannot shoot at R2 (you are not able) so you are free to shoot something else.

2) the second question is harder, because both Reckless Diversion and Distract mention "if able". As far as I can see no effect takes precedence. You could argue that you cannot shoot at all (you are not able to shoot either, because the other prevents it) or that you can pick. If you shoot at one - which you have to - you are not able to shoot at the other. I would play that you can pick, but on a tournament I would definitely ask a judge for a ruling.

I agree with SailorMeni on 1, the "if able" on Reckless handles the situation, same as if the unit with a faceup order token was completely out of line of sight or range.

For 2... Yeah, that's a head scratcher. Probably worth sending in through the Customer Service rules clarification service.

10 hours ago, SailorMeni said:

1) the key part in Reckless Diversion is the last: "if able". You cannot shoot at R2 (you are not able) so you are free to shoot something else.

That was my initial thought as well but actually both Reckless Diversion and Inconspicous are "must... if able" effects. RD forces the opponent to attack a unit with a face up token "if able". Inconspicous forces the opponent to attack another target "if able". Let's say the opponent declares an attack vs R2-D2. You may:

1. Check whether Inconspicous works - that is if the opponent is able to attack anything else, other than R2. You may now conclude that because of Reckless Diversion he is not able to do so (he must attack a trooper with a face up order token and R2 is the only one), therefore Inconspicous does not work and R2 is attacked.

OR

2. Check whether Reckless Diversion works - that is if the opponent is able to attack a trooper with a face up order token. You may now conclude that because of Inconspicous he is not able to do so, therefore everything else can be attacked but R2 cannot.

It's interesting that you decided to automatically assume no. 2 is correct because I thought so too at first. However, the more I think about it, the less I'm certain. Inconspicous does not give R2 a blanket immunity that would make it an illegal target by nature. You need to resolve it's effect before you can claim that R2 cannot be shot at. And trying to resolve it lands us at no. 1. Quite a pickle, eh?

You are absolutely right, same wording ... I guess we need a designer's clarification on that.

Either could be shot , and my thinking is this.

Each ability stops you from shooting another unit unless you are unable to do so, in which case the target becomes legal.

ie you can shoot R2 since by using distract the trooper unit is not a legal target ,which opens up R2 to be shot.

Similarly the trooper unit has to be shot if possible , and at the time of declaring a target neither can be declared therefore making both viable targets since both are illegal at the time of initially choosing a target.