Inconspicuous: While a unit with the inconspicuous keyword has at least one suppression token, when an enemy unit performs an attack, it must target another unit, if able.

Reckless Diversion: When an enemy unit performs an Attack, it must attack a trooper unit that has a faceup order token, if able.

Han plays Reckless Diversion. R2 has a faceup order token and a suppression token.
Can an enemy unit attack R2 if all other targets in range and line of sight do not have faceup order tokens?
Does that enemy unit have to attack him because of Reckless Diversion?
Or must that enemy unit attack another unit instead because of Inconspicuous?

When the unit performs an attack it has to attack R2 since it is unable attack anything else due to the command card. This is allowed by inconspicuous, however it isn't obligated to attack and can choose to do something else unless he unit has the keyword AI Attack.

On 2/19/2020 at 3:22 AM, syrath said:

... This is allowed by inconspicuous, however it isn't obligated to attack and can choose to do something else unless he unit has the keyword AI Attack....

How so? The wording is the same. One says "if unit x attacks, it must attack unit y, if able", the other says: "if unit x attacks, it must not attack unit y, if able".

Even the exceptions that are described in the official rules forum for Reckless Diversion and in the Glossary for Inconspicuous seem to be the same.

Yeah... I think this one desperately needs a ruling. Both effects use the same language.

59 minutes ago, M.Mustermann said:

How so? The wording is the same. One says "if unit x attacks, it must attack unit y, if able", the other says: "if unit x attacks, it must not attack unit y, if able".

Even the exceptions that are described in the official rules forum for Reckless Diversion and in the Glossary for Inconspicuous seem to be the same.

Let's put it in the terms of a logical equation.

Inconspicuous : While a unit with the inconspicuous keyword has at least one suppression token, when an enemy unit performs an attack, it must target another unit, if able.

Let's look at this an attacker can normally attack R2 but R2 has a suppression token. So it must target another unit if able. The unit is not able to target the other unit due to another effect in play so R2 now becomes a legal target because the other unit is not a legal target at the time of deciding the defender

Han plays Reckless Diversion. R2 has a faceup order token and a suppression token.
Can an enemy unit attack R2 if all other targets in range and line of sight do not have faceup order tokens?
Does that enemy unit have to attack him because of Reckless Diversion?

Now R2 has a face up order token, and the attacker must attack that unit if it is a legal target. At the time of choosing the defender cannot target R2 because there is a game effect in play that says that they must target another unit if able. (inconspicuous). They cannot target that other unit at the time that the defender is chosen so that then makes R2 a legal target again. So both units become legal targets because both units are legal to target unless you can target another unit normally. And neither unit is a legal target normally.

The two effects create an infinite logical loop. If I had to rule on the spot, I would probably say both effects cancel each other out because (without an official ruling) that seems less arbitrary than choosing one of the effects to trump the other.

But I think it needs a ruling because the rules as written currently don’t resolve well.

2 hours ago, nashjaee said:

The two effects create an infinite logical loop. If I had to rule on the spot, I would probably say both effects cancel each other out because (without an official ruling) that seems less arbitrary than choosing one of the effects to trump the other.

But I think it needs a ruling because the rules as written currently don’t resolve well.

Agreed, even if my response is 100% accurate , it shouldn't require such a long explanation to explain why. I can even think of another ruling off hand that can counter the way I think that it could be ruled in the earlier post. I remember reading that the active player can choose the order game effects happen when two things happen at same time ,in which case the defending player can decide which unit is the one that can be shot at.

ie, you apply the ruling from inconspicuous first , R2 is not able to be shot at If another legal target exists (let's say a rebel trooper unit). The inconspicuous ruling rules the tR2 unit as a legal target and the trooper as not.

The the rebel player chooses to apply the ruling for the command card after making the above check, in which case the rule becomes irrelevant because R2 is not a legal target leaving the rule that you can attack the trooper unit since there is no.alternative.

The opposite holds true if you apply command card ruling first (which actually has something going for jt, if only because the command card effect is pre existing before the inconspicuous check comes into play, which then means R2 is the only legal target.

So it could come to attackers choice, (read my earlier post), defenders choice , as per the two options above, or R2 ONLY because the command card has priority since it's effect is already in play before the check for inconspicuous is even checked.

Anyone getting dizzy

13 hours ago, syrath said:

Agreed, even if my response is 100% accurate , it shouldn't require such a long explanation to explain why. I can even think of another ruling off hand that can counter the way I think that it could be ruled in the earlier post. I remember reading that the active player can choose the order game effects happen when two things happen at same time ,in which case the defending player can decide which unit is the one that can be shot at.

ie, you apply the ruling from inconspicuous first , R2 is not able to be shot at If another legal target exists (let's say a rebel trooper unit). The inconspicuous ruling rules the tR2 unit as a legal target and the trooper as not.

The the rebel player chooses to apply the ruling for the command card after making the above check, in which case the rule becomes irrelevant because R2 is not a legal target leaving the rule that you can attack the trooper unit since there is no.alternative.

The opposite holds true if you apply command card ruling first (which actually has something going for jt, if only because the command card effect is pre existing before the inconspicuous check comes into play, which then means R2 is the only legal target.

So it could come to attackers choice, (read my earlier post), defenders choice , as per the two options above, or R2 ONLY because the command card has priority since it's effect is already in play before the check for inconspicuous is even checked.

Anyone getting dizzy

It is actually not relevant which effect is applied first in this case.

Both effects remain in play and are not an instant event that is canceled once it is resolved.

As nashjaee suggested, I think the only thing you can choose with which effect you begin the logical loop.

I think this is alot more straight forward then being assumed here so I will provide my thought process and see if that helps at all.

So both Inconspicuous AND Reckless Diversion state you must do X if able. The if able is the important part here. So lets use an example.

R2D2 and a rebel trooper unit are both in los and range of a Stormtrooper unit.

Example 1

R2D2 has a suppresion token, no order token.

Rebel Trooper has no order token.

R2 is not a legal target due to inconspicuous, this is pretty straightforward and a good start point.

Example 2

R2 has a suppresion token, no order token.

Rebel Trooper has a face up order token.

R2 cannot be target because both Inconspicuous and RD classify him as a non valid target.

Example 3

R2 has a suppresion token, face up order token.

Rebel Trooper has face up order token.

In this example R2 IS NOT a valid target because while both have face up order tokens for RD R2 has a suppresion and thus you must pick ANOTHER valid target, in this case the Rebel Trooper.

Example 4

R2 has a suppresion token, face up order token

Rebel Trooper has no order token

In this example R2 can be shot at and let’s look at the reason why. Inconspicuous says he can’t if there is another valid target. RD states that you must target units with a face up order token when making an attack. The Rebel Trooper does not have a face up order token and is thus not a valid target for this round, R2 does have a face up order token and is a valid target for RD, now because there are no other units within los and range that fullfill RD conditions this means that the IF ABLE part of Inconspicuous comes in. The Stormtroopers are not able to target anything else due to other conditions on the board and so Inconspicuous does not trigger.

20 minutes ago, Karnage1992 said:

In this example R2 can be shot at and let’s look at the reason why. Inconspicuous says he can’t if there is another valid target. RD states that you must target units with a face up order token when making an attack. The Rebel Trooper does not have a face up order token and is thus not a valid target for this round, R2 does have a face up order token and is a valid target for RD, now because there are no other units within los and range that fullfill RD conditions this means that the IF ABLE part of Inconspicuous comes in. The Stormtroopers are not able to target anything else due to other conditions on the board and so Inconspicuous does not trigger.

But why does the Inconspicuous' "if able" comes in and the RD's "if able" not?

Reckless Diversion: When an enemy unit performs an Attack, it must attack a trooper unit that has a faceup order token, if able.

If R2 has a suppression token, you are not able to attack him because of Inconspicuous.

Ok Lemmiwinks, in my example 4 which unit is a legal target for the Stormtroopers and why?

R2 has a face up order token and a suppresion token.

The Rebel Trooper has no order token

Is the answer no one? That would imply that there would no exceptions to either condition rendering the “if able” part useless surely?

54 minutes ago, Karnage1992 said:

Ok Lemmiwinks, in my example 4 which unit is a legal target for the Stormtroopers and why?

R2 has a face up order token and a suppresion token.

The Rebel Trooper has no order token

Is the answer no one? That would imply that there would no exceptions to either condition rendering the “if able” part useless surely?

As the wording is the same, there is no stronger argument for one or the other effect to prevail, so it's impossible to say 100% certain which is the valid target. That is why @nashjaee mentioned that we need an official ruling for this case.

58 minutes ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

As the wording is the same, there is no stronger argument for one or the other effect to prevail, so it's impossible to say 100% certain which is the valid target. That is why @nashjaee mentioned that we need an official ruling for this case.

Exactly. You could present Karnages argument exactly reveresed as well.

Every assumption that either the requirement to target R2 or the prohibition to target R2 is applied first and is then cancelled out by the other one is completly arbitrarily.