Attacker chooses defending characters meaning(e.g. Ambusher)

[davidk64]

Are there any restrictions on which defending characters the attacker may choose for example in regards to whether the defender is untapped/tapped or wounded?

For example the Ambusher card. There are no restrictions listed on the card but I wondered if there is some generic rules about how this may be applied?

As a newbie I thought it would either be:

1. The attacker must choose in the order untapped then tapped then wounded, or

2. The attacker may choose untapped only then it passes back to the defender for remainder

Thanks for any help.

Where is the first place I should look for answers to questions like this?

[the JabberwocK]

I'm not a rules expert, but I can answer your question.

The attacker may choose any character regardless of their untapped/tapped/wounded status.

Not entirely sure where you would look for this, but one of the rules gurus I'm sure will post later with that answer.

Cheers,

Gavin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gollum51]

Gavin is right. Attacker can choose any defender. Card text over rides rules.

[Konrad Klar]

Text of card has priority over general rules. Right.

But as I understand, davidk64's concern is whether an attacker (beside being able to choose defending characters) must obey some order of assigning strikes.

Clarification: If the text on a creature card states that the "attacker chooses defending characters," any characters (not yet assigned a strike) in the defending company may be chosen (by the attacker) as the targets of the attack's strikes.

So answer is "no".

Some effects have even higher priority than "Attacker chooses defending characters" text and they may force some character to be assigned strike before attacker will be able to choose defending characters among remaining characters. And this is a sense behind "(not yet assigned a strike)".

Where is the first place I should look for answers to questions like this?

Just this forum, this section.

[CorumMc]

The defender needs to assign to untapped characters, so to me that meant that the untapped characters must be assigned first, then following them, tapped/wounded characters are assigned (at attacker's choice.)

I'd thought that the attacker being able to assign attacks meant the attacker assumes the role of that first priority (gets to assign strikes to untapped characters of his choice). Then the attacker would be able to assign any overflow to the rest of the party.

Didn't realize I had that wrong.
Thanks

[davidk64]

Thanks for all the replies especially Konrad for pointing to an I.C.E. document that directly addresses the issue. I have a copy of those rules so was good to get them out and read it in black and white!

Chris I think your interpretation is logical to. I suspect we'll be asking a few more questions in this sub forum as our PBEM game progresses