Last time we discussed this, the rulings were as follows:

1) Making a proposed attacker illegal or removing a proposed attacker canceled the attack.

2) Removing an attacker did not cancel the attack.

Word is that a PCQ in Florida ruled that removing an attacker at any stage of the attack canceled the whole thing.

That's in direct contradiction to ruling #2.

So which is it?

The offical rule is that if you remove a proposed attacker BEFORE the attack starts, the attack is canceled. If you remove an attacker after the attack starts, it continues.

It doesn't surprise me that the judges at several PCQ's got this wrong since you don't really have to know a whole lot to be certified as a judge. I can tell you that the official rules were definitely being enforced in UDE-run events like the tournament in Philly.


-Eric

So if you have two characters that team attack one of mine and I say Mystical paralysis one of them before they tap to engage in the attack that cancels the whole attack?

My thought was the attack still continues just without that character involved in the attack.

Similar if you attacked with three people and I tapped one then the other two still attacked.

It was a great way of trapping characters.

Now the others meerly get to re-declare who they want to attack?????

Joey

ok, so what is the ruling now?
i knew there were differnt times 2 use plot twists
but if i tap a guy b4 he and the others tap?
that means the attack is cancelled and the others can choose
a new target??

if they team attack and then i let them tap
i cant use an effect 2 force the tap of one of them
bcuz he is already tapped, correct??

im so confused, is there still a way 2 take out a couple
attackers from a team attack w/o cancelling the atk?

Here's some examples:

I declare a team attack on your Dr. Doom with 3 of my characters. During the declaration step of the attack, you exhaust one of my attackers with mystical paralysis. We both pass. Since one of my declared attackers in a team attack is now unable to attack, the attack is no longer valid and doesn't happen. Nobody exhausts to attack.

I declare a team attack on your Dr. Doom with 3 of my characters. We both pass during the declaration step so the attack begins and the attacking characters exhaust. During the attack, you overload one of my attackers and he becomes stunned. The attack continues with the two remaining characters. If you were to say, reign of terror another one of the attackers back to my hand the attack would still continue with just the one remaining character. If all of the attackers (or the defender) are removed at any point during the attack, the attack immediately ends. If the defender was removed then any remaining attackers ready.

Obviously, if you have a choice you want to wait for someone to team attack you and then remove one of the attackers after the attack starts. Then you will almost certainly stun the remaining attacker.


-Eric

thanks TostitoBandito (Eric, w/e ur called)
i got it now...
thats pretty much what I had thought b4
this thread just confused me

i think the steps of the attack r a little complicated tho
and i could see lots of complaints in PcQs
about whether or not it was still the declaration step....

You have to give your opponent an opportunity to react to a declared attack before you exhaust and begin. If you don't, then your opponent can say "Hey, wait a minute. I want to react to the declaration of the attack. Back up.".


-Eric

I thought the team attack rule change was to prevent people from taking advantage of Cyclops: Slim's ability. You declare a team attack with 3 characters, then you exhaust 2 of them to get their effect and they are no longer part of the attack, but the third character still attacks with +2 attack because it is still considered a team attack.

I thought the new rule was that if the attacker removes one of his own characters from a team attack it canceled the entire attack. The defender can still remove attackers from a team attack with the attack continuing, though.

If I misunderstood the rules clarification, someone please correct me because I'd like to know the correct ruling for upcoming PCQ's.

You misunderstood. It isn't just for the attacker exhausting his own characters before the attack.


-Eric

Removing an attacker after the attackers have exhuasted will not result in the attack being "canceled." Attacks are actually never canceled.

If during the check for legality the attackers aren't all still legal the attack fails to start. After this point making an attacker not legally able to attack (exhausting them, removing range/flight, etc) will not cause the attack to fail to start as, well, the attack already started after this check ;-)

If no attackers are not present when the ATK/DEF comparison would occur then nothing happens.

If one attacker isn't present at this time, then the remaining attackers compare ATK/DEF

If a defender isn't present at this time, the attacker(s) ready.

I just wanted to emphasize this.

cdaniel/Chad wouldn't believe me when I said that this was the case and I'm glad a NetRep confirmed it.

I think this is important to understand that attacks do not cancel or rewind. Many people confuse this issue and say things like "Well, since the attack is canceled, I get my Savage Beatdown back".

For anyone judging, this is a good way to explain why they don't get their PT card(s) back and why certain 'attack' triggered effects still take place.

For example:
If Banshee attacks a front row Alicia (and then she goes to the bottom of the deck), not only does he re-ready, but he still exhausts up to 2 support row characters. The attack was NOT canceled, it continued through and during Attack Outcome, since the defender was not present, Banshee re-readied but still got his attack effect.

I believe this is the reason why UDE has stated this... if I am wrong... please correct me.

oh, i'm sure we haven't heard the end of why some things work the way they do, and why the game mechanics seem odd at this time but will most likely make a lot more sense in the future.

must be nice to know what the future sets are and how little nuances in the game mechanics will be fleshed out to accomodate them.

mitchell - can you please confirm what was altered in philly (if anything) concerning team attacks? perhaps the situation and the ruling that was made? it was my understanding based on discussion with judges and other players that attended philly that a ruling was made which said if an attacker was removed from a team attack, then the remaining attackers re-ready. if the actual ruling is:

if a PROPOSED attacker is removed from a PROPOSED team attack then the remaining attackers re-ready. if an IN PROGRESS attacker is removed from an IN PROGRESS team attack then the attack continues less the removed attacker.

i would appreciate the clarification. thank you.

"if a PROPOSED attacker is removed from a PROPOSED team attack then the remaining attackers re-ready. if an IN PROGRESS attacker is removed from an IN PROGRESS team attack then the attack continues less the removed attacker."

This is correct, except that the attacker doesn't re-ready, as they havent' exhausted yet.
You exhause after:
Propose.
Check for legality again.
THen exhaust, etc.

I guess I'm kind of confused after reading this thread; I need a concrete example to reference, Mitchell:

So I declare a team attack on 4 cost Dr. Doom with 2 cost Cyclops and 3 cost Wolverine. My opponent plays Mystical Paralysis on Wolverine. He's out of the attack. Does the attack then continue as proposed with just Cyclops, or can I now propose a different attack, since the proposed attackers are no longer available for the original attack?

Thanks in advance for the answer...