Target character cannot team attack this turn. If Glory Hound is in your resource row and you control an X-Statix character and a character with a different team affiliation, you may replace Glory Hound.

Now my question is
If they propose a team attack, and you glory hound on of their characters, does the attack continue with the remaining team attackers? i.e. Is the attack only partially illegal, but the remainder can stay? Or is the whole attack determined to be illegal so an entire new attack can be proposed?

Gloryhound has to be played BEFORE the team-attack is made legal, otherwise, the attack goes through as normal.

Right.

But does that make the proposed ENTIRE attack illegal, thus allowing him to make an entirely new attack proposal?
Or does it make only the SINGLE team attacker illegal, thus forcing the other attackers to continue on with the team attack without that single team attacker?

I am playing Glory Hound before the legality of the attack is resolved.

For a proposed attack to be found legal, each of the proposed attackers and defenders must be found legal, since those proposed attackers and defenders essentially define the proposed attack.

Every attack proposal has 3 steps. Every attack has 3 steps. But you have to recognize that the two things are different.

Proposal

Step 1) Propose the attack: You can propose an illegal attack here if you want to. It just won't go anywhere. It's also important to note that you do not exhaust your proposed attacker here.

Step 2) Pass Priority: If the proposed attack would be legal, this is your chance to make it illegal. This is where you would have to play Glory Hound to stop the attack from happening.

Step 3) Check Legality: You check the usual things here. Are the proposed attackers legal. In the case of a team attack, do the team attackers share an affiliation. In the case of a direct attack is there a possible defender. If the attack is legal, you start the legal attack.

Every attack proposal will go through all 3 steps.

(Also, note, I think that the CRD combines step 3 of Proposal and step 1 of the legal attack. I just think it helps to think of it this way.)

Legal Attack

Step 1) The Attack Begins: Characters become attackers and defenders. Attackers exhaust.

Step 2) Pass Priority: This is your chance to play ant ATK or DEF pumps, or do anything else. If you were to play Glory Hound at this stage, it would not 'remove' the team attacker stamp that the target was given in step 1. What that means is that it would not remove that character from the attack. It would just prevent that character from team-attacking anymore this turn.

Step 3) Attack Concludes: Do your ATK and DEF comparisons as normal. Once you get to this point, there's nothing more that you can do. Finally, the characters lose their attacker or defender status.

It's important to note that (like proposals) all attacks, once made legal, will go through all 3 steps.

*****

So, the short version is that Glory Hound can only stop a character from proposing a Team Attack...not participate in one.

If the proposed attack is never legal, the characters never become attackers and therefore never exhaust.

And as I alluded to earlier, you can propose any attacks you want. They just won't happen unless the proposed attack is found to be legal.

Thanks. That's what I thought it did originally, but then I thought about it again and thought that there might be partway legality for team attacks.

Actually, Clark, you can't even propose attacks that would be illegal:It's not especially important from a gameplay point of view, but I suppose it stops you from trying to bluff your opponent, making an illegal proposal and hoping that they show their Mystical Paralysis, that kind of thing.

I appreciate the clarification as usual, HeroComplex, but in this case, my point was more realistic than semantic.

I say that because I "can" propose them. The game doesn't have the ability to stop me from 'saying something'. Sure, the game might not recognize the proposal, but the game isn't going to shut me up. I mean, we've all proposed a backrow attacker only to have our opponent remind us that he doesn't have range, right? That's my point. I can propose any attack I want. I don't know if this constitutes cheating, but players propose illegal attacks all the time...just like they might play plot twists illegally. The game just rewinds.

That was my point.

Nevertheless, HeroComplex, you are right, as well.

I totally appreciated the purpose of your post, and I know that the point was a very minor one; it's not something I'd normally post to mention, since I felt as nitpicky writing it as I'm sure you did reading it. I probably wouldn't correct a player who casually mentioned that he was proposing an illegal attack, either. But since we were talking directly here about what's legal in the rules, had to chime in on it.

And for what it's worth, I agree on the parallel to playing a plot twist illegally; we all make mistakes in-game, and the rules covers us by rewinding past truly illegal actions. Which probably (thankfully) means that we're not supposed to treat this kind of mistake as cheating.

There should only be a real problem if it looked like a player were intentionally starting to play plot twists illegally, or trying to propose illegal attacks, as a fake-out, knowing that the game rewinds for him. I don't think I've heard of anyone trying it, but I'm guessing that's the reason for 601.1d, just in case.

Which is all a fun philosophical conversation, but far enough away from the rules that no one should pay attention to me. ;)