Hehe, I'm responding from work, so it seems I took so long to write my response, the issue was setteled ;-)

"How can you exhaust an attacker before the attack begins? Are you saying I can declare a team attack, activate an attacker (or exhaust him via some other effect) and push the attack through?:

Currently this is legal, the attacker that exhausted will however no longer be part of the attack. It still *is* a team attack according to the information Alex has given, so I'll pass this instance on to the rules team so they can look at it and decide if this is the way it should stay.

(all emphasis mine)

page 18:

"A team attack is a combined attack by multiple characters on the same team against a single defender. Any number of characters can participate in a team attack, but they must all have the same team affiliation AND EACH OF THE CHARACTERS MUST LEGALLY BE ABLE TO ATTACK THE DEFENDER"

page 20:
'if an attacker...is...removed from play before the attack resolves, IT IS NO LONGER PART OF THE ATTACK"

"If the attacker is no longer part of the attack, the attack is canceled. FOR TEAM ATTACKS, THE ATTACK WILL STILL CONTINUE UNLESS __ALL__ ATTACKERS ARE REMOVED FROM THE ATTACK"

"If an attacker is no longer part of a team attack, its ATK is not included in the team's ATK"

-->What this tells us:

1) Each member of the team must be a legal attacker; any who aren't are removed from the attack.

2) Team attacks must START with multiple attackers in your declaration. Team attacks CONTINUE unless ALL of the attackers are removed - even if there's only one single character left, it's still considered a team attack.

3) Removed attackers do not count towards the team's overall ATK and are no longer considered as part of the team attack.

Simple logic, ALL covered in the rulebook.

Maybe simple to you.

Can you point out the exact part where it says if one of the proposed team attackers is made ILLEGAL prior to the exhaustion of proposed team attackers, the attack still continues?

All the parts you cited are for the attack, we were referring to the point in time before the 'attack' characteristic was applied, which is during attack declaration before the proposed attackers exhaust.

I know you can infer from the rules your point... but we were looking for exact wording and conflicting sources had us confused in that particular scenario.

1) You seem to be confusing 'the attack' with 'attacker'. The declaration is STILL PART OF 'the attack'. You don't need a character with the label of 'attacker' for an attack to exist.

2) If a potential attacker is illegally attacking, they are removed from the attack and they ready. They cease to be a part of the attack. But in order for a Team attack to be declared illegal, ALL of the potential attackers must be declared illegal, or the target of the attack must be stunned or removed from play.

As long as there is a legal attacker and defender, the attack continues.

To be involved in a team attack, 'EACH OF THE CHARACTERS MUST LEGALLY BE ABLE TO ATTACK THE DEFENDER'. Any character that is unable to meet this condition is removed from the team attack. It never once states that the attack is canceled if a single character does not meet the condition - that would not make sense with an attack mechanic that explicitly tells us that a team attack continues even when character(s) are removed from the attack.

Either way the issue has been resolved. Helping people understand the rules is good. Telling people "you should have figured it out" doesn't move anyone towards that goal.

To whom is this post directed?

Well somebody is confused. =) I think it might be you, Kergillian, but maybe it is me. Wouldn't everything _before_ the effect that exhausts and gives attacker/defender characteristics be the _proposed_ attack and everything after be the _attack_? Here's step three from Alex's famous combat post (emphasis mine):

3. Once the above effect resolves, if the proposed attack is illegal (i.e. I used dazzler on the proposed attacker). The attack never starts. Otherwise, you follow the instructions of the effect (exhaust attacker, give him characteristic "attacker," give defender characteristic "defender.") This is when the attack starts and this is when "Whenever ~this~ becomes attacked..." or "When ~this~ attacks..." triggered powers trigger. Attacking player gets priority.

To me this would suggest that the proposed attack is part of combat, not part of the attack. This would also mean that a potential attacker is _not_ attacking, illegally or otherwise, which mean they are not _removed_ from the attack, but simply not allowed to become a part of it. Symantics it would seem, but it's the symantics that are what appears to be confusing everyone. To me it seems that the attack is a _very_ specific timeframe in combat, i.e. from the time the attacker(s) exhaust to resolution. So what do you think?

Okay, I think that you are correct - my ideas are not forming into sentences his morning. I shall rename it:

The ATTACK PROCESS.

(although 'combat' works too =)

that way I can stop the migraine that is building as I struggle with my words =)

Actually, I could argue that what you define as 'the attack' is in reality, 'the attack step'. When I say 'the attack', I am talking about the point in time when the attackers are exhausted as a result of attacking and we are now chaining all those nice little PTs on each other.

Tomaeto, tomahto. UDE has already confessed that this part of the rulebook is not specific enough to cover all cases which is why Alex had to post his Combat Outline. Many of us didn't even realize that 'reinforcment' actually occurs BEFORE attack resolution/outcome.

Again... I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. The rules regarding that particular instance (illegal vs removed) was not apparent to me.

EDIT: Thanks Locke, you beat me to it... and you explained it in a way I guess I was trying to. You can be my first chair on CourtTV when me and Kergy battle next.

LOL. I think we all know what we are saying here and sometimes (as I myself have proven with several posts) we aren't quite as articulate as we would like. But the important part is that we distinguish the _actual_ attack from the rest of combat because it seems to be this tiny little point that is just confusing the holy bejezus out of everyone.

Yup, it is as I stated in the very first response,

...and backed-up by Officially by Mitchell. Thats it...no more no less. You could say "proposed" or "attacker", either way the end result is the same.