What happens when they are together?

Targeted Strike - "When attacking, this unit may instead damage a target enemy unit not participating in the engagement"
Shii-Cho Training - "Damage from enhanced unit's [unit Damage] icon type may be divided among any number of participating enemy units"

Can I damage multiple units that are not participating? I would think yes as targeted strike overrides the participating rule and Shii-Choo overrides the single enemy rule.

LORDs_diakonos said:

Don't agree.

Strictly according to the way the cards are worded, Targeted strike gives you the ability to target a non-participating enemy, but only one. Shi-Cho grants the ability to target multiple enemies, but specifies that they be participating units. Since these things are mutually exclusive, you can only benefit from one at a time -- you may choose to *either* target a non-participating enemy *or* multiple participating enemies.

I can see what you are saying but treating them exclusive might also lead you to consider what each is doing.

normal rule damage 1 participating unit.

Shii-Cho overides the number of units where Trageted Strike overrides the participating.

I was hoping to get a rulling from FFG here

You cannot spread your damage across more than one non-participating unit in this senario.

explanation? reason you say this? just wondering are you pointing to a rule?

I mean there are lots of options. maybe I can hit multiple participating units and one non (targeted strike)

I read the cards a little differently. This is all based on my own views, though.. not actual hard rules.

Shii-Cho Training over rides the normal requirement of only targetting one unit.

Targeted Strike over rides the normal requirement of participating units.

My flow of logical would be as follows..

Luke Skywalker is focused to strike. He has several unit damage icons to apply. I read Shii-Cho Training which states I can go ahead and target multiple targets instead of one. Great! That over rides my normal limitation of targeting only one unit. I read Targeted Strike, which states that I can apply damage to a unit not participating in the combat. The card uses "a" not "one".. so I don't believe this is a numerical hard limit. Its verbage is just referring to the normal requirements of applying unit damage to a single target, which already no longer applies to Luke due to Shii-Cho training. So I would resolve the unit damage as being spreadable thanks to Shii-Cho, and targetable on non-participating units thanks to Targeted Strike.

Targeted Strike I believe not only modifies the normal rulebook, but also the rules on Shii-Cho Training as they are just enforcing the normal rules for targeting, not creating a new hard limit itself. And at the same time, Shii-Cho Training is modifying both the normal rules outlined in the rulebook along with the reference to those rules on Targeted Strike. For the same reasons. I don't think Targeted Strike is creating new limitations, just references the normal rule of targeting just one unit.

Dietcokeofevil said:

But specifies participating units.

Dietcokeofevil said:

But specifies one unit. Note that in the full rules text from the rulebook (which specifies that reminder text is only a reminder and not actual rules) targeted strike explicitly indicates *one* target unit.

Dietcokeofevil said:

This is actually not how it works.

Targeted strike is a rules effect. Shii-Cho overrides it because Shii-Cho is a card effect. Shii-Cho specifies participating units. Therefore, if you're using Shii-Cho to divide your damage among participating units, you're restricted to participating units *only.*

Even if it were the reverse -- if Targeted Strike took precedence over Shii-Cho -- Targeted Strike explicitly states you can target *one* enemy unit that isn't participating. So whichever effect takes priority excludes the other effect.

LORDs_diakonos said:

Nope. Text of shii-cho requires you to divide your damage among participating units, and the card text overrides the rulebook text of targeted strike.

LORDs_diakonos said:

Shii-Cho specifies participating. Targeted Strike, because it's rules text, can't override a card.

I had the same situation arise yesterday. We decided that Shii-Cho specifies participating units, so I couldn't divide up all of Luke's damage amongst non-participating units, due to the wording of the card. It was pretty straightforward.

BD Flory said:

I'm of the opinion to agree with the fact of only being able to use either/or (either multiple participating, or one non), however, your argument is invalid. I refer to the box statement in most FFG LCG rulebooks:

"If the text of a card would conflict with…" the rules in this book… "the card text takes precedence"

stormwolf27 said:

nevermind. eyes were playing tricks on me as I was reading your statement. please disregard that last statement.

LORDs_diakonos said:

FFG doesn't give rulings in the forums. However, they will give a ruling to you individually if you click on the link at the bottom of the page that says "Rules Questions."

If you receive an answer, and if you post both the question and the answer (exact quotes, please) in this forum, it's almost as good as having them respond directly.

AUCodeMonkey said:

I agree. This seems pretty straightforward. Since Luke has Shii-Cho Training attached, he has the option to deal his unit damage among any number of participating units. But, Targeted Strike gives Luke another option; he can instead damage a single non-participating unit. As was mentioned above, the player will have to decide which of these two options make the most sense in the given situation -- is it a better move to damage a non-participating unit, of to damage multiple participating units? One can think up many situations where either move would be quite wise.

I agree with the interpretation that allows the player to apply only one enhancement or the other.

That said, I submitted this to FFG's rules question link a couple weeks ago, and Monday heard back, answer unclear, ask again later.

Not a direct quote, of course, but that was the gist of it. Keep an eye out for the FAQ on this one.

LORDs_diakonos said:

think of it like this: card A tells card B what to do, card B tells card A what to do, card A tells card B what to do, enter infinite loop of one telling the other what to do.

It is best not to put these on each other. =)

Anyways, I also feel that these are exclusive and you must choose one or the other option. As they both are Very Specific on what they do. Also, since they are not a "Forced Action" you do get to choose.

They are both separate "may" effects. This is grey enough that we're going to need an official ruling. It appears to me (after reading everyone's arguments and giving the rules a good re-looking over myself) that you can apply one or the other but not both.

You "may" turn left or right, pick one. It really is that simple for this particular question.