booored said:

True indeed booored ! On that point, we see eye to eye :-)

 Although I understnad how the rules stand concerning ability to attack the same enemy twice with ranged, I do agree with booored's opinion on how it should be. The trouble I have with the current ruling is that it's making a distinction between declaring an attack and participating in an attack when this isn't addressed in the combat steps. A single player declares multiple attackers, not one attacker and a couple participants. So why, then, does a ranged character get the option to be a participant? Why isn't the character declared as an attacker as well? It seems strange to me that there is a distinction between attackers and participants in this particular instance when similar situations don't, i.e. there is no difference between who engages whom. That seems utterly inconsistent to me. If Player 2's Brand shot Player 1's Hill Troll during Player 1's turn, Player 2 should not be able to attack the Hill Troll at all during his turn. Simple as that. Ranged is plenty good enough as a trait without adding the "participate-in-an-attack" mechanic.

The combat steps do make a distinction (albeit, not a very clear one) between initiating an attack and selecting attacker: "Step 1: Declare target of attack, and declare attackers."

Two types of declarations are made, what the target is and who is attacking. So, the first is restricted while the second is not. The distinction is inherent in the rules.

However, it isn't clear. Given the new ruling on shadow cards being dealt in any enemy attack as well as this ruling, I am strongly of the opinion that the whole of the combat rules really need to be written.  

Anodos said:

Yes, but this is my not point. I'm not arguing that targeting and attacking are different steps, I'm saying that the combat rules don't ask you to select an attacker and then select participants. You don't say, "I'm exhausting Gimli to attack that enemy. Okay, now I'm selecting Thalin to participate in the attack."

Instead you say, "Okay, next I'm attacking that enemy. My attackers are Gimli and Thalin so I'm going to exhaust them." There is no distinction between an attacker and a participant in the normal flow of combat.

EDIT: Keep in mind that these recent posts are just "fluff." The rules are written and that's that. I'm just rambling on why I think the rules should have been different.

Budgernaut, you have confused me on your perspective.

Players declare an attack through normal game mechanics.  Attackers and participants are synonymous when it comes to player attacks.

If Player A has Legolas, and Legolas being a participant in an attack made by Player B does not make Player A the player that declared the attack.

Let's pretend that I sent a Wandering Took over to Player B to help attack an enemy he is engaged with.  If Player B sends Wandering Took back over to me, I stand him somehow and also give him Dunedain Cache, why can't I use him to attack that same enemy Player B attacked with him?  The Wandering Took already participated against that enemy, but that does not matter because it is not character specific.

Declaring attacks against enemies is Player specific.  Participating in an attack declared by the other player is not the same thing as you declaring an attack against that same enemy.

You cannot declare attacks against an enemy simultaneously as another player.  Not only that, but declaring an attack against an enemy when it's the other players turn is illegal.

 Well, Bomb, when you put it that way, I realize that one of my concerns is the restriction on attacks. I do think it would make more sense for attacks to be limited by character, rather than by player. That's not how it works, and I'm fine with that. It took a ridiculous amount of time for me to understand why a ranged character can attack the same enemy twice in a round, but a normal character couldn't and I think a simple restriction of only being able to attack an enemy once each round would have been a lot simpler. Simpler, but not necessarily better. I'm not the one who play-tested rules concerning number of attacks, and I'll just accept the rules the way they are. It's plenty fun the way it is.