[Just_a_Bill]

Doesn't changing it to line of sight make the sentence pointless? Surely Craig or Rob or whoever put those sentences there for a reason?

EDIT: Okay, I just got it through my thick skull. They meant "line of sight" instead of "clear sight" and also meant for the word "only" to make it clear that the other figures didn't require LOS, not to exempt the need for LOS in the actual targeting. "Only the chosen figure requires LOS" (an intended clarification) rather than "The chosen figure requires only clear sight" (a rule override). Big difference! So it's really just an intended clarification that went awry through fuzzy terminology and ambiguous word order. Wow. I took this sentence at face value the first time I read it years ago, and never questioned it until today.

@dok and @CT actually explained this, but somehow I missed that they were pointing me to the adjacent figures. Thanks for the eye-opener guys. Again I find out I've played this game wrong for 8 years. Wow.

Okay, back to The Varja. I'll go strike the errors off my list.