So after the defenders are declared, I can move the Landspeeder to a different objective, and my opponent cannot use the same defenders he declared for the first objective, right? 

So after the defenders are declared, I can move the Landspeeder to a different objective, and my opponent cannot use the same defenders he declared for the first objective, right? 

Not quite.  The engagement doesn't end and restart, it just changes which objective it's declared against.  Your opponent actually must use the originally declared defenders and cannot add any new defenders as you are after the declare defenders step.

Not quite.  The engagement doesn't end and restart, it just changes which objective it's declared against.  Your opponent actually must use the originally declared defenders and cannot add any new defenders as you are after the declare defenders step.

Ah, okay, that clarifies it for me then.

I'm very interested to see this mechanic play out, as it makes selecting defenders very tricky if any of your objectives are close to death. When this becomes more common in the Endor cycle, I think we could see a major shift in the way the game is played. 

And another question - using this, you can actually engage the same objective twice per turn, right? Using the reaction on this card doesn't make the objective that you move to count as engaged so you can just declare a regular engagement against it as well, right?

And another question - using this, you can actually engage the same objective twice per turn, right? Using the reaction on this card doesn't make the objective that you move to count as engaged so you can just declare a regular engagement against it as well, right?

There's no limit to the number of engagements at each objective each turn; you're only allowed to declare and engagement against an objective once. 

Correct. You can only declare an engagement once against a given objective, but you can redirect engagements without restriction.

If this is the case, what is the point of using the word "eligible"?

Scenario:

Yoda declares against Fall of the Jedi, resolves an attack.

Luke's Landspeeder declares against Emperor's Web, but reacts to change the target to Fall of the Jedi. 

Is this correct?

There's no limit to the number of engagements at each objective each turn; you're only allowed to declare and engagement against an objective once. 

Rulebook p.18 states: 

"Each enemy objective may be engaged only once per conflict phase. If the active player has already engaged all of his enemy’s current objectives this phase, he must proceed to the Force phase."

Engaged - not declared as target. Even though this text appears in 1.Declare Objectives -section. Is there errata ruling elaborating this?

EDIT:

Dang. Latest errata seems to define 'engaged' quite clearly now. Situation solved.

Can this still react if no defenders were declared?

I'm assuming no, but would like a second opinion.

If this is the case, what is the point of using the word "eligible"?

 

Scenario:

Yoda declares against Fall of the Jedi, resolves an attack.

Luke's Landspeeder declares against Emperor's Web, but reacts to change the target to Fall of the Jedi. 

 

Is this correct?

Might eligible also indicate that objectives with enhancements that don't allow them to be engaged under X circumstances are not fair game with this unit's ability?

Might eligible also indicate that objectives with enhancements that don't allow them to be engaged under X circumstances are not fair game with this unit's ability?

Common confusion that stems from "engaged" being both a verb and a state that an objective can be in.  When cards (and the rules) refer to whether or not an objective can be engaged, they're using it as a verb and thus referring to the act of declaring an engagement.  Cards like Luke's Speeder or Secret Objective circumvent declaring an objective and can get around "cannot be engaged" effects.

Rulings

http://www.cardgamed...-only/?p=191375

http://www.cardgamed...es-landspeeder/