In order for this card to function properly you have to move the character to whichever row he isnt in right? Since it doesnt say you may it is a condition, and you cant move a character to the same row, because that =not moving?

You MUST switch a character's row to play the card. As you stated, there is no "May" in the text, making the movement mandatory.

And no, you may not move "to the same row" because, as much as you might want it to be, thats not moving.

Actually Nataku, you can "move" to another Column within the same Row, as long as the spot is unoccupied.

Each Row (Front, Support, and Resource) have an infinate amount of Column's.

Sorry, my mistake...Misinterpreated the card (i say it as meaning a move from support to front or vice versa, i re-read it and saw my error).

Movement from one column in a given row to another column in that same row constitutes movement into the row.

If someone is targeting one of your characters and you use combat reflexes to move someone else to protect that targeted person does the attacker get to re-ready or does the attack simply miss?
I know you check legality at the beginning of the attack, so when I protect that original target does he just have an exhausted character with no possibility of attack?
As always thanks for the help

the attack would be deemed illegal unless the attacker has flight.. the attacker would ready

If you use combat reflexes before the attacker exhausts, then the attack is cancelled.

If the attacker has exhausted, you cannot make the attack illegal.

That is what I thought, once the characters have taken on the "attacker" and "defender" characteristic that the attack could not have been made illegal.

So you could move even an exhausted character to block someone and they would still recieve the attack advantage. Nice to have a card to be used offensively and defensively.

The attacker would not have exhausted if CR was played in response to the declaration, so they would not ready.

If the attacker had already exhausted it would be too late to make the attack illegal.

If some other effect caused the attacker to be exhausted in response to the declaration, the attack would be illegal and he would remain exhausted.

Wait, all I have to do is say "I move my guy uh... to his left." That's pretty weak. I'd prefer it if it forced you to move rows. Columns shouldn't be an option. I could maybe see moving a reinforcer but still, I'm taking these outta my decks.

The card just became MORE powerful, and you're removing it???

Moving columns can still be a hinderance, if you expose a weaker character who was hiding behind the other one. Besides, the flavor of the card is movement somewhere other than you were, a reflexive action that throws the person you're in combat with offbalance, because you're somewhere they thought you weren't, giving you an attack advantage. Burn Rubber is a card that seems to mandate movement, but with that you can sit in one place, buring rubber all day long.

I understand it completely. I just don't like it. It should be worded better. I'm taking it out to avoid as many situations with this card as possible.

Now a positive question about this card based on what this thread has established.

Can I use it to move a stunned character, "Garth it back" or throw a second, then move a protector to where the stunned character was?

I'm still not going to use it over Flying Kick or something similiar, just trying to throw out combo's.

No, because you can't use plot twists on a stunned character unless the plot twist says they are a legal target.

The card is worded fine: Move target character you control to your front or support row. The OR gives you a choice.

Yes, you can play Combat Reflexes on a stunned character.

The same applies to any plot twist which does not speficly prohibit such a choice or continuous modifiers to the contrary (think Yancy Street).